Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by de_

I can't say if this scenario applies in this case

Lets say you are a super team and you build (or help build or direct the building of) an identical robot for a non-super (say rookie) team and the 2 of you form an alliance that wins not only your local regional but you go to say 3 other regionals and win all those as well.

If the second super robot did not exist, at 4 regionals another 4 (deserving) teams would have virtually certainly been in the winning alliance and would have received:
- a permanent very desirable trophy
- a highly visible regional championship flag
- a very limited availability invite to the championship (a huge growth experience for students)
- substantial recognition in their school, mentors, sponsors, students etc
- substantial improvement in funding opportunities to go to the championship (versus if they had come second place with no invite, no trophy etc)

This may not break any current FIRST rules but it is clearly inconsistent with the goals of FIRST and the student base overall are the losers.

Clearly its okay to help a junior team get a basic robot to a regional. To help them so much that they get into winning regional finals in my mind crosses the line.

So, to get this straight: If I am helping another team- I should make their robot a haphazard version of my own and make sure they aren't as successful as my team will (or hopes to) be? Why are they not deserving of winning with me?

What would be the point of helping another team at all then if I don't plan on helping them reach success?

Your issue doesn't even seem to be with collaboration, it seems to be with being too helpful of a mentor team. Most teams don't force themselves on a rookie team, the rookie team asks for as much help as they think they want/need.

[ajd]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

So, to get this straight: If I am helping another team- I should make their robot a haphazard version of my own and make sure they aren't as successful as my team will (or hopes to) be? Why are they not deserving of winning with me?

What would be the point of helping another team at all then if I don't plan on helping them reach success?

Your issue doesn't even seem to be with collaboration, it seems to be with being too helpful of a mentor team. Most teams don't force themselves on a rookie team, the rookie team asks for as much help as they think they want/need.

Definition of success should be taken into consideration here too...there are unique learning experiences for students and mentors on a rookie team that could conceivably be lost with too much help from a mentoring team. That's not to say that the situation is necessarily bad, but there are pros and cons both ways.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by ajd

Definition of success should be taken into consideration here too...there are unique learning experiences for students and mentors on a rookie team that could conceivably be lost with too much help from a mentoring team. That's not to say that the situation is necessarily bad, but there are pros and cons both ways.

Which is why I wrote in my post: "Most teams don't force themselves on a rookie team, the rookie team asks for as much help as they think they want/need."

[ajd]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Which is why I wrote in my post: "Most teams don't force themselves on a rookie team, the rookie team asks for as much help as they think they want/need."

Sorry - I hope that didn't come off as an attack on what you were saying. I just wanted to emphasize a point that I thought could use more attention.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by ajd

Sorry - I hope that didn't come off as an attack on what you were saying. I just wanted to emphasize a point that I thought could use more attention.

Nope, totally fine. And yes you are correct with defining success in different ways, I was just referring to the point brought up about winning regionals and trophies and blue banners.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

What we all seem to agree on is that in the scenario where a veteran team and a rookie team collaborate make 2 identical robots, one of the teams is going to be missing out on some much needed experience, and unfortunately that's going to be the rookie team.

I don't agree with that at all. Strike the "missing out" and "much needed" and "unfortunately" parts.

In fact, remove everything after the first comma and replace it with "someone is going to get seriously inspired, and in many cases it'll be both teams -- the veterans by exposing the rookies to good practices and by having a complete mentoring experience, and the rookies by seeing what can be done and by participating in a well-managed process."

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

What we all seem to agree on is that in the scenario where a veteran team and a rookie team collaborate make 2 identical robots, one of the teams is going to be missing out on some much needed experience, and unfortunately that's going to be the rookie team.

No. Not at all. I agree with that about as much as I agree that putting a power drill to my temple would be a good idea.

In fact, I'll say the opposite. In the scenario of a rookie team being mentored by a powerhouse... They learn how the powerhouse is run, what the design process used is, how they approach sponsors. They learn how to emulate this powerhouse. They don't miss out, they don't miss experience. They get an awesome chance to see how a good team should be run.

Also, I cannot agree with Alan more.

[pfreivald]

I think that, as with most things, there are good and bad ways to do this kind of collaboration. A powerhouse team could leave the rookies bored by doing everything, not taking the time to explain and teach, and essentially using the rookies as window dressing (and perhaps fodder for their Chairman's Award presentation). It could be done so badly that instead of being inspired, the rookies get bored of watching the powerhouse's well-oiled machine and don't even last the six weeks, instead moving on to activities wherein they can actually participate and contribute.

I find this situation unlikely in the extreme, because I do not believe that the mentors who get involved in FIRST (on either team -- the powerhouse or the rookies) would allow it to happen. Instead, they would use their boundless mentory goodness to ensure that whatever arrangement is reached and however things work between the teams, they are mutually beneficial to each -- however those teams decide to define the term "mutually beneficial".

[Dale]

This situation is a little different here than most veteran team/rookie team collaborations. 1510 and 2898 would share many of the same mentors and the same shop space. Students would, I assume, split into two groups if they were to build two different robots but it's not like one group is necessarily less experienced than another or that poor little 2898 needs the help of it's older brother. These are very capable students and mentors. They'd spin off another robot in order to give more students key roles as the team is getting pretty big.

My point early in this thread is I think it would have more impact to build two different robots so that more students can get their hands dirty in the design process. Otherwise, all you're doing is spending $10K for eight more students to have more fun at the competition (drive team and pit crew) and you get the "fun" of assembling another robot just like the previous two. The lasting impact of FIRST happens during build season, not at the competitions.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Dale

My point early in this thread is I think it would have more impact to build two different robots so that more students can get their hands dirty in the design process. Otherwise, all you're doing is spending $10K for eight more students to have more fun at the competition (drive team and pit crew) and you get the "fun" of assembling another robot just like the previous two. The lasting impact of FIRST happens during build season, not at the competitions.

I don't think this is true. Students still get their hands dirty in the design process. Making two different designs means nothing if one is superior to the other because logically, the best aspects of both designs from both teams would be merged into one if you build twins. The final product would possibly be an iteration of both teams' ideas.

Also, I completely agree with Alan's post. Well said.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

What we all seem to agree on ...

Who all? Not me.