Concerning Whistleblowing

[Pat Fairbank]

There was a thread recently discussing what should happen when teams fail the size and/or weight requirements during re-inspection. I'd like to start up a related discussion on the act of whistleblowing.

A few times over the course of my years in FIRST, I've seen teams with illegal mechanisms, materials, etc. at competitions. At one of the regionals I've been to this year, I've seen a team (on a Friday, and therefore after inspection) whose bumpers were notched out at the bottom to facilitate ramp climbing. I wasn't sure what to do at the time. I didn't want to call them out on it and be thought of as ungracious, especially if the result of my action would mean the difference between losing and winning a match against the team in question. I ended up not doing anything about the illegal bumpers, apart from making sure that team wasn't on our list of potential alliance picks, in case someone else were to make an issue of it during eliminations.

I should mention that it's not my intention at all to call the inspection system into question here; it would be impossible for all the inspectors to have the six-weeks-plus experience of the rules that FIRST team members have, and so a few mistakes will inevitably be made.

So here are my questions:

• Would you blow the whistle on a team who had gotten through inspection but was still violating the rules, either advertently or inadvertently?
• Would you only blow the whistle under certain circumstances, such as letting it slide during qualifications, but calling the team out if you came up against them in the eliminations?
• If not, would you regret not having done so if the team in question went on to defeat you and win the event?
• Alternately, if you were to confront the team directly about it instead of approaching the inspectors or the referees, how would you go about doing so?
• Where gracious professionalism is concerned, is it a greater wrong to tattle on another team and potentially bring shame upon both teams, or to let the rule-breaking slide?

[Chriszuma]

Well I would probably only decide to call them out on it if the rule breaking was something that would give them an unfair advantage over teams that were following all the rules. Of course, I would bring any potential rule breakage to the attention of the team so they can fix it before they get too close to finals inspection and someone does call them on it. I think that's the most GP thing to do.

[jagman2882]

i think that you have to call them out on it. If i was breaking the rules accidentally i would want to know so i dont have a problem with it down the road. and if they knew then you should tell a inspector because breaking the rules is certiantly NOT GP

[sanddrag]

At SoCal I was an inspector. I saw a team using the plastic gearbox parts from the 2003 (and 2004?) kit of parts. These parts were custom made for FIRST back then, were not manufactured by the team during the build season, and were not COTS parts available to everyone by a legitamate vendor. I didn't inspect this particular robot but I saw it while passing by. I didn't call them on it because it would have ruined their whole shooter if they had to remove those pieces. It wasn't giving them any unfair advantage or presenting any unsafe condition. While the the rules should be followed strictly, I believed that the team would leave the event with a more positive attitude and the spectators and alliance partners would have a more positive experience seeing this robot shoot rather than see it aimlessly drive around. I don't want to scrap anybody's mechanism that they've worked hard for. Team pay good money to have a good time at that event and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. So, in this situation, I kept my mouth shut. But there was one team running Fisher Price motors on 20 gauge wire, and another team with 5 small CIMs, and I couldn't let that slide.

[Chriszuma]

Also, anyone who fills their air system with an offboard compressor is familiar with "the spike rule," which they told us about at our first regional, and several inspectors have agreed is kind of pointless. Since it was in no way unsafe or advantageous, they let us use our air compressor system without having a Spike in the system, as the rules declare. They recognized that the system we had designed was completely safe and the addition of a Spike would only add a degree of unreliability. When we had some downtime, we were able install a spike in the system, but if they had required it to pass inspection we would have had a major hassle on our hands.

In short, a little bit of discretion on the part of inspectors is a good thing. Strict adherence to some rules isn't always feasible, and if it doesn't cause any harm, what's the harm in it?

[sanddrag]

Yep, we faced the off-board air and spike dilema. It is a silly rule. And how are you supposed to use a Spike without at RC? At Phoenix and LA, they let us do it without a Spike.

Another issue is chain guards. They didn't require them at Phoenix but did at LA. I know for a fact we passed without one and ran matches without one as did at least one other team. But everyone had one by the end of the competition.

[TimCraig]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

Strict adherence to some rules isn't always feasible, and if it doesn't cause any harm, what's the harm in it?

I consider a number of rules that FIRST has to be unnecessary or even silly. And when we've questioned them to FIRST, we've been told that's the way it is. One case in point, using double sided tape to fasten the robot numbers and logos on the polycarbonate sides. Why using adhesive Velcro is "superior" I have no idea but we do it to avoid having to argue with the inspectors. Yet every year I see robots using tape to hold on their numbers or even making their numbers out of tape. So next year I should just ignore the rule and if anyone calls me on it tell them they're being silly?

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'll vote for bringing the situation to the team's attention and offering to help them rectify it. It's entirely possible they're just clueless and in need of some guidance. After that, it's a much tougher choice, of course. I'd probably ask the inspectors to look at a team again if it came down to it. Of course, one of our students asked a ref at GLR to talk with a team that had bumpers falling off because they were attached with wood screws. He just got shrugged off and sent on his way.

[Chriszuma]

Originally Posted by TimCraig

I consider a number of rules that FIRST has to be unnecessary or even silly. And when we've questioned them to FIRST, we've been told that's the way it is. One case in point, using double sided tape to fasten the robot numbers and logos on the polycarbonate sides. Why using adhesive Velcro is "superior" I have no idea but we do it to avoid having to argue with the inspectors. Yet every year I see robots using tape to hold on their numbers or even making their numbers out of tape. So next year I should just ignore the rule and if anyone calls me on it tell them they're being silly?

Clearly these things need to go on a case-by-case basis. I agree that rules are rules (even if only on the purely logical standpoint that 1==1). As such, every effort needs to be taken to ensure that all teams follow them. In the case of the air compressor spike, it would have been a major detriment, and an executive decision was made to let it slide for the time being, based on the intentions of the rule and the situation. However, if the case involves using tape decorations, then it really isn't causing a large problem to make the team replace it with something more appropriate.

If you are going to confront another team it should only be over matters of a very serious nature. In my career I have confronted managers and project leaders when I thought actions being taken might be illegal, or might expose the company to liabilities that we could not handle. Confrontation is a valuable tool, but it should only be used when absolutely needed.

I disagree. You don't have to make a confrontation out of this. You can simply talk to the other team and ask them if they knew about rule R07 or whichever they appear to be breaking. That seems much more gracious than saying "not my problem."

Without GP FIRST could easily degrade into a contest involving the exchange of various body fluids.

Um, exaggerate much?

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

Um, exaggerate much?

where was it this last year, some kids dad beat another kids father to death at a HS hockey game?

[Chriszuma]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

where was it this last year, some kids dad beat another kids father to death at a HS hockey game?

I agree that Gracious Professionalism is important in keeping the competition civilized, but bodily fluids? Come on.

[LauraN]

Hmmm....this is clearly a tricky question.

I think rule number one here should be this: if I ever decide to take action because I feel a team has broken the rules, I would always bring it to the team's attention first, before involving inspectors. This goes back to what Ken said- respect is an important part of GP, and if I were on the receiving end of this, I would much rather have another team approach me (in a friendly way!) and bring the subject to my attention, rather than have an inspector come back after approving the robot because he/she received some "anonymous tip." This is FIRST, not America's Most Wanted. We're not out to get each other, we're here to help each other learn.

When should you mention a rules concern that you have? When safety is an issue, always. Otherwise, I guess it's up to you. Look at the example sanddrag gave us: suppose you're in that situation. You see a team that has illegal parts completely wound up in one of the most important components of their robot. Let's give the team the benefit of the doubt for a minute and say that just didn't read the rules carefully enough. You "blow the whistle" on them and they have to dismantle half of their robot. Maybe they are amazingly creative and they come up with something else on the fly- great. But maybe not. Now they have a drivetrain to put on the field. They can still compete but all those students who worked for hours upon hours and were really proud of the design are just a little heartbroken ...has anything good really come of that situation? =/ I don't know.

Now, if the team in question had done all of this on purpose, knowing that they were cheating...I suppose this would become a different question, assuming that we had any way of reading minds. Now we're in really sticky territory. But suppose we know for a fact that this team was cheating. No matter how cool we think it is, FIRST still exists in the real world. Which means that some FIRSTers will cheat, and the fact that they are FIRSTers doesn't make the cheating any less uncool. Cheaters still need to be forced to follow the rules, no matter how much positive bias we have towards them just because they happen to be FIRST nuts too.

Every situation has to be taken separately. Should the first team have read the rules more carefully? Absolutely. But there's a big difference between screwing up and blatantly cheating, and there should also be a difference in how we treat each case. (Even though it should always be with GP.)

[ahecht]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

Um, exaggerate much?

I think what Ken was referring to here was a "p---ing contest", not an actual exchange of body fluids.

[Peter Matteson]

Okaaaay...

To get back on topic I have whistleblown in the past. At a regional on Thursday I took a look at all the robots as I'm inclined to do at all regionals. I saw two issues at 20 feet from the robots that I thought were obvious. I went and asked if these robots had been inspected and was told they had. I then asked the inspector to look at something on each robot and showed him a line item in the robot section of the handbook that applied to the obvious problems I saw. One team was using a motor that we hadn't gotten in the kit that year. The other was using too many of a motor.

I didn't have a problem with saying this to anyone because we all get the same rules and parts at the begining of the season. Doing what these teams did was flagrantly violating rules.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

Okaaaay...

To get back on topic I have whistleblown in the past. At a regional on Thursday I took a look at all the robots as I'm inclined to do at all regionals. I saw two issues at 20 feet from the robots that I thought were obvious. I went and asked if these robots had been inspected and was told they had. I then asked the inspector to look at something on each robot and showed him a line item in the robot section of the handbook that applied to the obvious problems I saw. One team was using a motor that we hadn't gotten in the kit that year. The other was using too many of a motor.

I didn't have a problem with saying this to anyone because we all get the same rules and parts at the begining of the season. Doing what these teams did was flagrantly violating rules.

I had no idea that rule violations are so rampant at FIRST events. You have completely changed my mind about this.

Im thinking now that each team should appoint students and mentors to be unofficial final inspectors, to discreetly check out every other robot at the event to make sure that no team is getting away with anything (all three days).

And Im thinking FIRST should hire certified professional engineers to be inspectors. The amateur inspectors clearly are not catching all the violations.

I shutter to think what would happen to this program if a team won the championship, and they had illegal parts on their robot, and the media got wind of it! Massive lawsuits!