Ruling on Robonauts Balance

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

They've been using "reasonably astute observer" definitions for years as a way to essentially say, "Look, folks, it's impossible to create a positivist document. Not difficult, not really hard, but actually impossible. So we're not going to try to do that. Be creative, but do so within the spirit of the competition-as-sport that we've set up."

The problem with falling back on "reasonably astute observers" is that, clearly, reasonably astute observers are going to disagree about things. It's a fine guideline for most cases and situations, but it's completely useless in these kinds situation. I mean, I hope we can agree that teams like 1967 and 118 are made up of reasonably astute people. These reasonably astute people are telling the GDC, "We think this is legal, but we thought we'd check with you. What do you think?" And then the GDC mumbles something, shrugs and wanders off. Exactly how are teams supposed to react to this kind of behavior?

One option is to move forward in good faith but with some trepidation that the the GDC will turn around and declare it illegal: "Didn't you hear us mumble that it wasn't legal?" Clearly 118 picked this path and I think they have some cause to be annoyed at the GDC for mumbling and equivocating during build season before finally making a decision over a month later.

I suppose your other option is to start assuming that a "reasonably astute observer" is actually a perverse killjoy that hates creativity and unexpected situations. So any time the GDC falls back to that excuse you just assume that your idea is illegal, but they don't want to outright TELL you so because, you know, that'd be all depressing and would make the GDC feel bad. This is certainly a safer position to take, but you have to admit it makes things a lot less interesting.

[waialua359]

Although I dont agree with the final ruling made on Friday morning, perhaps its a lesson to teams and the GDC in the future where teams should be allowed to submit diagrams and pics in the Q&A asking a question like, "Is this legal?"

[Cory]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

Please keep in mind that designs like this put the Q&A folks in a difficult situation -- they can't possibly anticipate every solution that a team can dream up, and so the intentionally broad definition criteria of 'astute observer' (which I personally find to be completely reasonable) gives them wiggle room to do exactly as we are instructed to: interpret the spirit of the game, and not try to squeeze every advantage out of the letter.

I see no possible interpretation in which this put them in a difficult situation. The Q&A Justin quoted was asked in week 1. It is eminently clear what the question is asking (can we hang off the side of the bridge, or otherwise partially support robot weight in order to balance without being entirely on the polycarb on the bridge?).

There is no way the GDC did not understand that teams wanted to know if they could hang from the side of the bridge. They chose the cop out route of answering with a non-answer.

Nearly a month and a half later the issue was forced and they had no choice but to give the answer they should have given originally. Instead of playing games with the Q&A all they had to do was say "we intended the angle on the side of the bridge to be a guide to keep teams from falling off, not a support for teams to hang from". That would have taken thirty seconds to post. Instead they give a typical useless response and multiple (I'm sure there's more than just 118) teams waste time and money implementing such a device in the hopes that it is legal.

7 weeks ago the GDC wasn't between a rock and a hard place. They chose to insert themselves there by not answering a simple question (completely not robot design related...it is a fundamental question about how the game is to be played). End of story.

[Ken Streeter]

Robonauts,

Having been on the wrong side of a questionable game design committee (GDC) ruling on legality of a robot (back in 2008, Overdrive, with Speed Racer), we know what it feels like to invest hundreds of hours in an innovative solution that you felt was legal, only to have it disqualified by a GDC.

You have our understanding in this matter, whether or not we actually agree with the ruling.

The good news is that it seems that you have an incredible robot this year, even despite the disqualification of the innovative bridge balancing approach. Best regards for a continuing great performance at Alamo!

[lemiant]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

The same way engineers do when given design specifications. The English language is imprecise, but "can't grab, grasp, or grapple" is at least highly indicative of the customer's design specs. If an engineer comes up with a solution that can be argued to not grab, grasp, or grapple, and yet it can be argued to do so as well, they'd better be prepared to suck up the opportunity cost of having designed/built that mechanism, because the customer might reject it.

In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted. Then when you came to them with the finished product they admonished you for not giving them what they wanted and rejected your design. Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such, one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand .

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by lemiant

In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted.

I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.

It would be nice if it were possible to create a positivist document. It's not.

In light of that, the "reasonably astute observer" standard is something you have to live with, and by "live with" I mean "take into account when making your design decisions".

Originally Posted by lemiant

Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such

Indeed. In the real world, the customer doesn't have thousands of engineering teams clambering for nits to pick on design specification. The time sink alone must be a consideration when determining how to answer questions.

Originally Posted by lemiant

one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand .

...and everyone on the GDC could be doing anything else with their time and make more money with less grief. I hear enough of the "I'm paying for this so everything has to go my way" drivel from my college students; I would hope to never see it in FIRST.

[galewind]

In my opinion, if the GDC is relying on a head referee to determine whether something is legal, then the rule(s) and terminology are not clearly enough defined.

I do see it as a cop-out by those managing the Q&A. And kudos to 118 for an amazing job with your design. You made a few of our students' and mentors' jaws hit the floor when they saw the side mounting.

Just my $0.02

[Anupam Goli]

I actually had the opportunity to speak with one of the members of the GDC (Jeremy Roberts) on Saturday , and he said it was a very tough ruling. He personally liked 118's ingenuity and innovation, but the GDC decided to rule against it, citing G10 and defined "grasping, grappling, or attaching" as "Applying pressure to two or more sides of an arena structure". Official ruling from GDC.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.

Nobody is asking them to define every word in the rules. People asked for them to define that phrase, and they refused to. FIRST dropped the ball and is punishing a team for innovation.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

Nobody is asking them to define every word in the rules. People asked for them to define that phrase, and they refused to.

Right, because after that word, there's the next, and the next, and the next... Setting the precedent of defining one word or two or three or five beyond "reasonably astute observer" but not another would create an emotional firestorm much bigger than this tempest in a teapot.

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

FIRST dropped the ball and is punishing a team for innovation.

Do you honestly believe that the GDC is punishing them? If so, I'm sure there's little I could say to convince you otherwise, but I hope you don't really mean that. If you do, that's quite sad.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't believe "you can't grab, grasp, or grapple" was ambiguous, and it is patently unreasonable to expect the GDC to define every word used in the rules -- especially since people will then pick apart the words used in the provided definitions, and then perhaps the words in the clarification of the meaning of the words in the definitions of the original words, and so forth.

It would be nice if it were possible to create a positivist document. It's not.

In light of that, the "reasonably astute observer" standard is something you have to live with, and by "live with" I mean "take into account when making your design decisions".

The GDC's fallacy is in the application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard.

I concur and am at peace with the fact that every word can be dissected...but that's not to imply that every such dissection is the same. When interpreting a rule, some ambiguities are more ambiguous than others. The aim is hopefully to provide a document that replaces big ambiguities with small ones, whenever possible—and does so in a way that's also reasonable to understand, follow and enforce.

In that respect, the knee-jerk application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard to so many different situations leaves a lot of big ambiguities. Refusing to further describe them preserves the symmetry of using the same standard everywhere, but also leaves us questioning whether there's a fundamental set of conditions that implies that this standard is appropriate. This dilutes the value of the standard, because we can't even articulate why the standard is right for a specific set of circumstances.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by lemiant

In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted. Then when you came to them with the finished product they admonished you for not giving them what they wanted and rejected your design. Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such, one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand .

Actually, this is exactly how an open bidding process works in the "real world". The GDC did not respond to requests to "validate a design". That is often how it works (always in my experience). A proposal team does not want to ask a question that is too revealing (because all bidders typically see all responses) and the customer will not answer private queries (to avoid an appearance of favoritism). So one is left with a risk management decision (which 118 did well in my judgment).

FIRST is meant to encourage young people to pursue careers in science and technology. If FRC was simply a game and not meant to mimic the "real world" - Why have Chairman Awards? Why the formal focus on quality and safety? Why have project managers? Why have engineering inspiration awards? Why do it in 6 weeks? Why the effort to use industry standard parts? In my opinion FIRST is definitely mimics the real world (with some limits).

Further, in the real world, one also pays to play and assumes a huge risk (no contract award) - at least in FIRST everyone gets their 10-12 matches worth. The $5K is a pittance against what it cost to put the events on. Consider the event volunteers, mentors and teachers and FIRST national staff volunteers. The $5K is just affirmation of serious intentions in my opinion. Teams are not "customers" who should make demands of FIRST.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by wireties

Actually, this is exactly how an open bidding process works in the "real world". The GDC did not respond to requests to "validate a design". That is often how it works (always in my experience). A proposal team does not want to ask a question that is too revealing (because all bidders typically see all responses) and the customer will not answer private queries (to avoid an appearance of favoritism). So one is left with a risk management decision (which 118 did well in my judgment).

FIRST is meant to encourage young people to pursue careers in science and technology. If FRC was simply a game and not meant to mimic the "real world" - Why have Chairman Awards? Why the formal focus on quality and safety? Why have project managers? Why have engineering inspiration awards? Why do it in 6 weeks? Why the effort to use industry standard parts? In my opinion FIRST is definitely mimics the real world (with some limits).

You're assuming that this similarity is intentional for a very specific reason, rather than coincidental, or intentional for other reasons. And you're also implying that the operation of a competitive bid process is a good thing.

There's more nuance to it than that—a bid process is good when you have strong bidders who represent their own interests effectively, and who don't particularly care about the economic inefficiency caused by incomplete information. I don't think this describes most FIRST teams very well.

Originally Posted by wireties

Further, in the real world, one also pays to play and assumes a huge risk (no contract award) - at least in FIRST everyone gets their 10-12 matches worth. The $5K is a pittance against what it cost to put the events on. Consider the event volunteers, mentors and teachers and FIRST national staff volunteers. The $5K is just a affirmation of serious intentions in my opinion. Teams are not "customers" who should make demands of FIRST.

You're conflating overhead related to preparing a bid with a registration fee paid to the event organizer. I don't think that's a good comparison.

In any case, even in a competitive bid, bidders are entitled to equitable treatment by the tenderer. In that sense, they have the right to make demands (e.g. protests) if they feel mistreated. I would say at a minimum, FIRST teams are also entitled to equitable treatment, and to make such demands as are necessary to acquire that.

[johnr]

How exactly were the students going to descibe this function to the pit judges? We hang off the ...nope, can't say that. We grab on to the...nope,can't say that. How would you descibe it to a judge? How would you describe it to anyone? Isn't there another team hanging off the edge of the ramp?

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by johnr

How exactly were the students going to descibe this function to the pit judges? We hang off the ...nope, can't say that. We grab on to the...nope,can't say that. How would you descibe it to a judge? How would you describe it to anyone? Isn't there another team hanging off the edge of the ramp?

Yes, 179 hangs of the edge of the ramp, yes its not the same edge but you didn't specify which edge they had to hang from...