Sippin' on the haterade

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Inspiring and anecdotal.

Given the lack of hard data, anecdotal evidence is what you're going to get.

We live in the boonies, 20 miles from either a stoplight or a Lowes (ten more for a Home Depot). The huge majority of business in our town is wine -- which won't even consider sponsoring a high school program for obvious political reasons. We have explicit restrictions on how many fundraisers we are allowed to do each year (2), and have a hard time attracting engineering mentors willing to make the drive.

Those are all reasons, but they're not excuses. Your choice, regardless of what resources you have, is to aspire to excellence or don't. (There are ancillary choices, such as "bemoan your lot or don't" and "seethe with envy or don't", too.)

We know FIRST isn't "fair", just like everything else. We don't allow that fact to do anything but push us to improve.

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

I just think it would have been better if the competitions were more fair.

I would absolutely hate to see parity imposed by knocking the elite teams down. FIRST is the challenge that it is specifically because you're not just trying to build a robot that can accomplish tasks, you're trying to build a robot that can accomplish tasks better than everyone else's robots.

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

(Since nobody is disputing the fact that the game unfairly gives an advantage to teams that have experience, money, and mentors, I guess we can agree to disagree on the way our values work. Mine: fair -> more inspired.)

I'll dispute it. "Fairness" is both arbitrary and irrelevant. You might as well complain that it's unfair that teams that know things about robots have an advantage over teams that don't. This undisputed "fact" is a "fact" only insofar as the statement "advantages are advantageous" is a fact.

There are already many rules that force some level of parity, from materials utilization to BOM cost restrictions to time restrictions. I'm willing to bet that if you tried to come up with more rules to enforce parity, in public on Chief Delphi, you'll find that it's a lot harder than it sounds -- and that many of your ideas will actually skew things even more in favor of elite teams.

tl;dr version: Elite teams aren't elite because of the inherent bias of the system, they're elite because of what they do within that system.

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Never assumed anything. I think you're taking my quote out of context. I was referring to *some* top teams, and not all, and I made that clear in my post.

Which ones?

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

That's great. This is how a lot of top teams work, and I have *absolutely* no problem with that.

Which ones?

Originally Posted by Kim Masi

Take professional sports, for example. You're either a Yankees fan, or a Yankee hater. I'm not saying this is something we should strive for, but its up to the individual students and their teams to rise above it.

Yankees... Yankees... They do something with a ball and a stick, right? Some running around, too?

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I would absolutely hate to see parity imposed by knocking the elite teams down. FIRST is the challenge that it is specifically because you're not just trying to build a robot that can accomplish tasks, you're trying to build a robot that can accomplish tasks better than everyone else's robots.

I like to think that the robotic aspect of FIRST is about students building robots accomplishing tasks better than everyone else's robots. Parity does not imply knocking the elite teams down.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I'll dispute it. "Fairness" is both arbitrary and irrelevant. You might as well complain that it's unfair that teams that know things about robots have an advantage over teams that don't. This undisputed "fact" is a "fact" only insofar as the statement "advantages are advantageous" is a fact.

Student knowledge is much more easily accessible than cash. And the point of FIRST is so that students can gain knowledge. Most people here agree that robots built entirely by mentors give their team a strong advantage (though they dispute whether or not FIRST should be fair). Fairness is arbitrary, but not irrelevant.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

There are already many rules that force some level of parity, from materials utilization to BOM cost restrictions to time restrictions. I'm willing to bet that if you tried to come up with more rules to enforce parity, in public on Chief Delphi, you'll find that it's a lot harder than it sounds -- and that many of your ideas will actually skew things even more in favor of elite teams.

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce "FIRST is primary about students. Mentors, remember you're only here to help, not do it for them". If they emphasize that philosophy (which would be great), mentor-ran teams would not disappear overnight, but their legitimacy would decline, and teams will change; the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

tl;dr version: Elite teams aren't elite because of the inherent bias of the system, they're elite because of what they do within that system.

Plenty of non-elite teams do similar things as elite teams, yet aren't elite teams. This further illustrates that "being elite" is dependent on factors other than how well they do things within the system.

[Bongle]

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce "FIRST is primary about students. Mentors, remember you're only here to help, not do it for them". If they emphasize that philosophy (which would be great), mentor-ran teams would not disappear overnight, but their legitimacy would decline, and teams will change; the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.

I disagree - since there is already animosity between student-run teams and teams that they perceive to be (but may not actually be) helped "too much" by their mentors, then actually having a rule or proclamation against mentor-run teams would make the animosity even worse, since these accusers would be able to claim the elite teams (who they know nothing more than hearsay about) are "too" mentor-run.

Having an ambiguous ruling would be like the post-Oshawa coopertition team update - it would officially change nothing and change nobody's opinion, but both sides of the issue would use it as ammo. Also, having the ruling enforced entirely by social pressure would be pretty brutal on the teams that get on the wrong side of the mentor witchhunt.

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by Bongle

I disagree - since there is already animosity between student-run teams and teams that they perceive to be (but may not actually be) helped "too much" by their mentors, then actually having a rule or proclamation against mentor-run teams would make the animosity even worse, since these accusers would be able to claim the elite teams (who they know nothing more than hearsay about) are "too" mentor-run.

Having an ambiguous ruling would be like the post-Oshawa coopertition team update - it would officially change nothing and change nobody's opinion, but both sides of the issue would use it as ammo. Also, having the ruling enforced entirely by social pressure would be pretty brutal on the teams that get on the wrong side of the mentor witchhunt.

I doubt it. FIRST produces a pretty good atmosphere at the competition in general, and most people follow the rules to the letter. If teams are truly mentor-ran and the order to change came, they would change. With less to complain about, accusations would decrease, and the whole issue would disappear.

How else do you suggest to fix it? Changing people's deep-rooted beliefs on fairness taught since birth is very, very hard.

If there's one thing FIRST taught me, it's that all problems have elegant solutions.

[Bongle]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

How else do you suggest to fix it? Changing people's deep-rooted beliefs on fairness taught since birth is very, very hard.

Let's take an axiom:
1) Making a rule that bans or reduces mentor involvement in FIRST is never, ever going to happen. Mentor involvement is what makes FIRST FIRST. The powers that be often make the exact opposite proclamation that you are requesting, where they actually say "100% student-built robots are not what FIRST is about"

So therefore, how could we reduce the snyde comments?
Idea 1: An education campaign, pointing out perennially high-performing teams that do so without any in-built advantages like a single massive sponsor to let teams with less support know that they can do it two
Idea 2: An official "most from the least" award, given to highlight teams that persevere through money/mentor/support shortages and still create excellent robots. Given many of the "we're low budget and we're good" comments in this thread, this award may end up going to regional winners or top seeds, and might make people realize that the "sponsor-built" robot they had been demeaning was actually built by people very much like them using resources not much beyond their own.
Idea 3: Publicize team budgets. This would have a good and a bad effect: since there are high-performing teams with enormous budgets, they'd get put in the spotlight. But since there are also high-performance teams without enormous budgets, it'd give the other low-budget teams hope that they could do the same.
Idea 4: Maybe you could publicize a team's minimum budget in the last 5 years. Since many teams will have dry years, this would allow everyone to say "oh hey, they had a dry year like ours, and they still became very strong later"

I don't really like idea 3 or 4, but you don't toss out brainstorm ideas because you initially don't like them. My favourite is the most from the least award.

Or you could change your definition of fairness - it doesn't actually take that long. You can find lots of posts by me where I'm making almost identical arguments to you now (look back in 2006, around the Niagara triplets), and I've changed almost 180 degrees in 6 years. Clearly it's not that ingrained. Our kids, despite us being a very low-budget team, appear to actually like and admire 1114/2056, our local powerhouses. They said they sat with them when they went to go watch GTR-east.

Being 100% student-built in FIRST is like an NBA team deciding to play a game with only their left hands. They may do well and it's very impressive if they can do well consistently, but they aren't using all the resources the rules allow them, and so they probably won't consistently do well.

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by Bongle

So therefore, how could we reduce the snyde comments?
Idea 1: An education campaign, pointing out perennially high-performing teams that do so without any in-built advantages like a single massive sponsor to let teams with less support know that they can do it two
Idea 2: An official "most from the least" award, given to highlight teams that persevere through money/mentor/support shortages and still create excellent robots. Given many of the "we're low budget and we're good" comments in this thread, this award may end up going to regional winners or top seeds, and might make people realize that the "sponsor-built" robot they had been demeaning was actually built by people very much like them using resources not much beyond their own.
Idea 3: Publicize team budgets. This would have a good and a bad effect: since there are high-performing teams with enormous budgets, they'd get put in the spotlight. But since there are also high-performance teams without enormous budgets, it'd give the other low-budget teams hope that they could do the same.
Idea 4: Maybe you could publicize a team's minimum budget in the last 5 years. Since many teams will have dry years, this would allow everyone to say "oh hey, they had a dry year like ours, and they still became very strong later"

Great ideas. I like 2~4. Re-education against human nature is ineffective. On the other hand, cold hard facts are certainly welcome in a pool of irrationality.

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

Patrick,
We're not limited by resources, machining or money, and we have never considered mechanum in the first place. This year particularly would be perfect to run a wide oriented 4wd or a 6wd with a single speed transmission. Sounds like you guys would benefit from following this suggestion.

We went with tracks this year. Our students literally machined tracks out of scrap from last year. When I said mecannum, I thought I made it clear we machined those 2 years ago, for the soccer + rail hanging game.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce "FIRST is primary about students. Mentors, remember you're only here to help, not do it for them". If they emphasize that philosophy (which would be great), mentor-ran teams would not disappear overnight, but their legitimacy would decline, and teams will change; the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.

VRC does exactly that. Is there/has there been a raging battle on the VEX forums about the have/have not teams there?

This thread has degenerated into another mentor-built vs. student-built thread, we've got piles of them, and of the dozens of events I've been to over the years, I have yet to see any 100% student-built or 100% mentor-built robots. Let's keep the OP in mind moving forward and make this a constructive discussion - if it needs to be discussed further at all.

tl;dr [the entire thread]: We love 1771, 1311, 234, 1114, 2056, et. al. We also are jealous of them. Whaddya gonna do.

[Patrick Chiang]

Originally Posted by Taylor

of the dozens of events I've been to over the years, I have yet to see any 100% student-built or 100% mentor-built robots.

Really? Well, our robot is 100% student-built (by that I mean every part of the robot has a student's fingerprints on it). And last year, at a competition, our students helped another team build their kitbot (they had issues) at the competition. So, that makes at least 2 I can personally verify. I know quite a few teams in the area that also claim 100% student-built bots.

[pathew100]

Re: Fairness. I can't remember which year it was but 5-6 years ago this was discussed at the kickoff.

I clearly remember Dean and/or Woody saying, (I'm paraphrasing here) "Yes, we know it's not an even playing field. It's not fair. But it's not designed to be. This is real life". (I'm sure someone will remember the year, and/or come up with the video).

Forget about who built someone else's robot. Have fun and celebrate in the success your team had and challenges that were overcome. That's what the competitions are about. All competitor's are to be valued equally regardless of their position in the rankings and who built what.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Really? Well, our robot is 100% student-built (by that I mean every part of the robot has a student's fingerprints on it). And last year, at a competition, our students helped another team build their kitbot (they had issues) at the competition. So, that makes at least 2 I can personally verify. I know quite a few teams in the area that also claim 100% student-built bots.

Did you use the Kitbot transmission? How about motors from the KOP? Control system?

If you used any one of those, and you claim to be 100% student-built, you're exaggerating. 100% student-assembled, I can accept. But that cRIO was designed by professional engineers, and built by people who build them for a living. Ditto for the motors. The Kitbot transmission was designed by an FRC mentor. (Actually, any AndyMark transmissions would have been designed by one or more FRC mentors/heavily mentored former students who are now mentors.)

Y'all want to claim 100% student-built, at least go back to the raw materials--resistors and board material and extruded aluminum and the like. I won't make you go back to ore; that's also extracted and processed by professionals.

Something you said earlier, about all problems have elegant solutions: Not always. Though if you find yourself with a non-elegant solution, you either solved the wrong problem, made assumptions that were wrong, or solved a problem that wasn't a problem. I've seen a few nasty solutions in my college coursework.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Really? Well, our robot is 100% student-built (by that I mean every part of the robot has a student's fingerprints on it). And last year, at a competition, our students helped another team build their kitbot (they had issues) at the competition. So, that makes at least 2 I can personally verify. I know quite a few teams in the area that also claim 100% student-built bots.

I don't want to come down strong on one side or the other. Take my experience and factor it into your evaluation. I have run the QuickBuild Electronics session at the Dallas Regional since it started. The talent and ingenuity of the students amazes me but they cannot build the robot by themselves, not even the kitbot! Now these are mostly rookie teams but the awesome students that you refer to above are not rookies, they have the benefit of 1-3 years under your tutelage. So with all due respect I think you should not map your picture-in-time on to all FIRST teams.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce "FIRST is primary about students. Mentors, remember you're only here to help, not do it for them". If they emphasize that philosophy (which would be great), mentor-ran teams would not disappear overnight, but their legitimacy would decline, and teams will change; the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.

Which they very clearly do NOT announce, and probably never will!

I'm honestly very surprised that the following haven't been posted yet:

Originally Posted by http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/vision

"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."
Dean Kamen, Founder

Mission
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

(emphasis mine)

How "mentor-based" your team is is up to you. But bear in mind, these are FIRST's vision and mission statements. I don't think they'll ever tell any mentor-built teams to not be mentor-built.

Also, that statement, even if it was issued, won't help. Let's look at 1114. For multiple years now, I've heard of teams saying they are being mentor-built. They aren't. (Ditto for 254 and 968 and some of the other teams out there.) That statement, even if FIRST issued it, would simply lead to more complaints like that, with accusations of cheating thrown in. It's human nature.

A statement from on high won't change minds and hearts. It's up to those on the ground to do it, one person/team at a time.

[huberje]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce "FIRST is primary about students. Mentors, remember you're only here to help, not do it for them".

Such a statement would take the emphasis of the program away from inspiration and put it on to competition.

If students are more inspired and have a better experience having mentors design and build the robot, that is their prerogative, not anyone else's.

Being told how you're supposed to be inspired isn't very inspiring. I learned that in high school.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

I like to think that the robotic aspect of FIRST is about students building robots accomplishing tasks better than everyone else's robots. Parity does not imply knocking the elite teams down.

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce "FIRST is primary about students. Mentors, remember you're only here to help, not do it for them". If they emphasize that philosophy (which would be great), mentor-ran teams would not disappear overnight, but their legitimacy would decline, and teams will change; the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.

Patrick,

This is quite simply not how FIRST works, or ever was intended to work. Go look up comments from Dave/Woodie/Dean/etc to this effect over the years.

How would it be fair to bring down teams who worked hard to get the resources they've acquired? We spend a LOT of time developing relationships with local machine shops and others who can donate services like powdercoating, anodizing, welding, etc.

This is how the real world works. When our students get mechanical engineering degrees there's probably a 90% chance they will never touch a machine tool during their professional career. That doesn't mean we don't teach them how to machine parts, because we believe that it's critical for engineers to know how things are made.

I could say a lot more about your claims of fairness and equality and mentor vs student, but as Andy Baker is fond of saying, arguing on the internet is like wrestling with a pig. You get dragged down in the mud and get dirty and the pig enjoys it. You're clearly not going to change your opinion.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Parity does not imply knocking the elite teams down.

I'm not looking at implications, I'm looking at specific implementation ideas from you on how you would achieve parity without "knocking elite teams down"...

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

And the point of FIRST is so that students can gain knowledge.

Please re-read their mission statement. Student knowledge is an inevitable byproduct of inspiration about science and technology, but...

Seriously, which gives you more knowledge: reinventing the wheel from scratch, or working with specialists in a particular field?

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Most people here agree that robots built entirely by mentors give their team a strong advantage (though they dispute whether or not FIRST should be fair).

Which people are you presuming to speak for? Also, which teams have robots built entirely by mentors? (Especially given the "have student fingerprints on it" metric you created above.)

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Fairness is arbitrary, but not irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant. Anything unachievable by its very nature is irrelevant to any discussion of reality. Equality in funding, geography, mentorship, experience, and work ethic cannot be achieved, and thus discussion thereof is in fact irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

To enforce more parity, all they would have to do is announce

I'm sorry, but that's not true. "Enforce" and a vague announcement do not logically mesh to any reasonable degree.

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

the competition would become a much less hostile atmosphere between alleged elite teams and normal teams.

Elite teams are normal teams -- they're just normal teams that do or have done more to get where they are. Inherent advantages play a part, sure, but that doesn't mean they play a part in which any of us should concern ourselves in the slightest.

Originally Posted by Patrick Chiang

Plenty of non-elite teams do similar things as elite teams, yet aren't elite teams.

Which, and what things?

Originally Posted by Taylor

tl;dr [the entire thread]: We love 1771, 1311, 234, 1114, 2056, et. al. We also are jealous of them. Whaddya gonna do.

Jealousy and envy should be purged from your mind and soul, and replaced with admiration and pride -- drive yourself and your team to be like those teams, and count yourself lucky to be in an organization with such incredible role models.

Originally Posted by Bongle

Idea 2: An official "most from the least" award, given to highlight teams that persevere through money/mentor/support shortages and still create excellent robots.

We've thrice won judges's awards of the "wow, they're tiny and rural but look what they've done!" variety. They're never enough -- not because we don't appreciate them, but because we want to play with the big boys and turn peoples's heads in a "wow, where did they come from?!?" manner. We're not there yet, but we strive to get there.

Originally Posted by sdcantrell56

"Viable" yes but seldom the best choice. For your particular strategy this year it seems to fit but you would have a hard time convincing me that mechanum is ever the optimum drivetrain.

We love our octocanum for Rebound Rumble... Just love it!