The White House AID

Originally Posted by Taylor

D
If this is set up as an exhibition, with alliances NOT equal to A-C-G-N, then that may be permissible.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. 16, 25, and 180 deserved to win, and they did. I think the only way to set this up without angering anyone would be to set it up as an exhibit for people to see, with random matchups between the 24 teams. Almost like making a new event, but with no actual competition involved. All teams would be doing their best to show off FIRST, not to regain champions.

Even then, I'm a little iffy on this. I like it, but still have my doubts.

[EricH]

For those that don't get this:
The entire suggestion of a demo at the White House is just to get you reading. The real point is the arbitrary deadlines.

While doing a demo at the White House would be cool, and inviting all the teams on Einstein would be a nice gesture, I highly doubt that that will happen. There just isn't enough time to pull it together unless someone started already.



Lucien, you need to get a little less subtle sometimes. It took me multiple reads--and to some extent, Tristan's post--to figure out what you were really saying.

[Donovan0217]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Do we really want to open this can of worms? I realize some teams may feel jilted at the altar, but any attempt to crown 'the true champions' (and dress it up however you'd like, but that's what this is) is insulting to all Einstein teams involved.

(I know it's not about the rematch - just like FIRST isn't about the robots.)

If this is set up as an exhibition, with alliances NOT equal to A-C-G-N, then that may be permissible.

edit: Let me be clear: I agree with the overall AID concept 100%.

I also agree with the concept of this, but it is just like all the talk about all the replaying Einstein. This should be out of the question, there are too many variables in replaying it. If we play without the same alliances, then i am perfectly fine with the idea, but otherwise it is going to look bad on everyone's part if it does not end exactly as it did on Einstein.

[Undertones]

I wish this was real. This could be amazing.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Undertones

I wish this was real. This could be amazing.

I'm with Pat on this one.

Something like this could work like the Titanic:

Thinking big, living large...and end up really hard to salvage.

[Undertones]

...Did you hear their rebuilding the Titanic? Some Australian billionaire has commissioned a Chinese shipyard to build an exact replica of the Titanic. It's due for it's maiden voyage in 2016.

Anyways I see what you're saying. Still, I can't help but think about how incredibly awesome the White House exhibition would be.

[jblay]

I got too excited before you said don't get too excited.

[Libby K]

I'm a little confused. Is there any reason right now that we're turning this into a big protest/spectacle? Why is it impossible for this community to trust that FIRST is working on the issues and trying to make it right?

I know that the situation on Einstein wasn't ideal in any sense, but obviously FIRST has made a statement on the fact that it's a priority and something they're working on, and I see no reason to start a rebellion unless they were to fall back on their promise...

I really hope this is a gesture of good faith and I'm just mis-reading the purpose as something angrier.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I'm a little confused. Is there any reason right now that we're turning this into a big protest/spectacle? Why is it impossible for this community to trust that FIRST is working on the issues and trying to make it right?

[...]

I really hope this is a gesture of good faith and I'm just mis-reading the purpose as something angrier.

I think what it is is that the teams want to know when they're likely to see results. It's nice that it's a priority. But is it a priority like polishing the 2013 FRC game (due out early next January) or like finalizing the FTC and FLL games (August/September timeframe, IIRC, though from a different part of FIRST)? Or is it to be done sooner, say in July? In short, is there a deadline for a root cause location/problem solution, and if so when is it?

Basically, we'd like to know where FIRST is in solving the problem. If FIRST were to issue some form of status update, via Bill's Blog or email blast or whatever means they choose to use, on a regular basis, that would probably go a great ways towards soothing a lot of the ruffled feathers among FRC teams who have been squawking about "We've been saying it's the field not our robot for a while now! What are you going to do about it now that you have evidence?" for a few days now.

I think it's a gesture of good faith. It's also a suggestion to help get progress moving on a solution. Deadlines are a great motivator for some reason (though I'd imagine a public failure is at least as good a motivator).

[Taylor]

tl;dr entire thread: We don't want to see these problems at IRI (or any other offseason event).

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Libby K

I'm a little confused. Is there any reason right now that we're turning this into a big protest/spectacle? Why is it impossible for this community to trust that FIRST is working on the issues and trying to make it right?

I know that the situation on Einstein wasn't ideal in any sense, but obviously FIRST has made a statement on the fact that it's a priority and something they're working on, and I see no reason to start a rebellion unless they were to fall back on their promise...

I really hope this is a gesture of good faith and I'm just mis-reading the purpose as something angrier.

Part of the reason for my lack of faith is people not realizing that the situation wasn't just at Einstein.

If we chalk up Einstein to a communications problem, then we sort of ignore that in order to get to Einstein all the matches before were subject to communication problems.

If we say that just Einstein is the problem then we imply that no other teams efforts to build robots are nearly as perfect of those that make it to Einstein. In point of fact all season teams have been told that their mysterious problems were in their robots. All season teams and competition folk have been ill-equipped with information and tools to help eliminate all these mysterious 'robot problems' and often times resort to the old canard: it must be a power quality problem (which at any competition is basically an end game you can't escape). In point of fact, when I personally got Team 11 to ask FIRST if we could monitor the radio power with a circuit inconsequential to it's operation FIRST stalled an answer till the very last and then....when it's now to late to be of value....lets people act like it can't be a power quality problem with absolutely zero quantifiable evidence because they prevented the collection of that evidence. It's getting old after 17 years to have some teams that are presumed to be above wiring and bad power supply components...but others are assumed forever to be buried in them (it's all nonsense it's not at all backed by quantifiable evidence it's all circumstantial and anecdotal). The mere idea that some people deploy that only 'a few teams' had these issues so they aren't important enough to eliminate betrays the fact that someone somewhere gets to unlevel this playing field based on a reputation backed by virtually no quantifiable evidence. (Actually let me say from experience every season since 1997 I've seen some team at one competition or another beaten down by a power quality issue claim from someone in a pseudo-official capacity into a situation where they can't basically compete against an argument that is in one way possibly very valid but at the same time inescapable.) If, in point of fact, this power quality issue is so often the case...we must either assume that all the Einstein robots are flawed or that FIRST has done everything of good engineering to fix it. As an engineer of fairly vast experience I can assure you FIRST has barely addressed this issue in a very long time.

For example see the quote in my post #186:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...45#post1165245

If this is truly a level playing field, it means that if field communications problems are found it was pervasive throughout the entire year unless the very specific criteria to frame it are provided. If you watch the people with the most experience have already either pointed out how very difficult this will be to find, or turned to ad-hoc community polling because they know that they can't hope to find a problem like this with a small lot of test samples. In point of fact, the issue probably exists because FIRST tested using a small lot of test samples in the very first place and they never saw the problem within that small lot in the very small number of situations they tested.

Worse now because I keep pointing this out it's seemingly my *personal* obligation to address a problem that I'm quite sure a small army of people have seen for themselves. That's really worse because I am not FIRST, anyone that helps me is not FIRST. Am I supposed to increase my sample lot by attending all of FIRST off season events? How many events and how many robots can *I* personally sample? My wager is no more than FIRST sampled in the first place, if they sampled robots at all, so the only hope is that the problems happen to happen in my lot while I leverage much smaller focus on what I'm looking for. Again, this is FIRST's responsibility, not mine. However, FIRST and those that seemingly speak for it have assured me that statistically it's just dandy if a few robots drop dead...just so long as their communication issue is addressed. A communications problem they can't address scientifically because they are skipping over checking the power quality issue...that seemingly...is now somehow *my* problem. Myopia down the whole line of well established science and engineering.

On the other side, if the problems are the robots, and the Einstein robots as the best of the best are impacted. Then that means that we were all laboring and failing under circumstances beyond our control.

No matter what, it is entirely without merit to argue that Einstein is the only singular example of a possible communications problem. No Einstein was just the straw that for publicity sake makes burying the situation literally impossible.

Add to that FIRST intends to seeming blockade insight into their process (and has for some time successfully done so) and no this is not paranoia. We all trusted FIRST to keep this playing field level and provide hardware that either worked or was capable of being made to work. Given what everyone could see at Einstein it's clear that in the right situations FIRST did not deliver on that promise. Logically...and this is an environment of logic...hiding the process behind the secrecy that helped create this situation means that we'll probably not get a straight answer or we'll get another flawed attempt at an answer.

I can think of nothing easier for FIRST given the way I've seen these problems approached all season than to make a big enough change to the system that it tossed all community efforts to track the problem into the dumpster then declare the problem fixed. Leaving us all at square one next year with people running about at competitions swearing we all don't know how to wire robots...except for a few...they never ask for help so surely they know how to wire a robot. By the way, teaching people that asking for help means you get to filter through endless nonsense...not a great lesson. After one's community ignores the frustration created by ignoring that people who ask for help are often led-astray long enough sooner or latter you might get 2 things: 1. A disaster at the top level of the competition. 2. A community of people who are under the impression asking for help, even demanding it, means you just get nonsense.

Don't misread what I write here as angry. Read it as it's intended. A passionate plea to remove several injustices that are eating FIRST alive from the inside. These problems are all purely scientific and engineering but they drive the politics and survival of FIRST. If FIRST didn't revolve around it's contributions to STEM then perhaps stuffing this under a rug would be slightly less destructive. Please do feel free to point any engineering or scientific people that you have access to in FIRST to this post. If I wanted to be destructive in my intent there are many much more effective arguments I could have made, this is constructive criticism. If FIRST would have preferred to have this criticism delivered in private then may I point out that I've made parts of this argument in the past and they've been swept under the rug either because of very blurry lines of communication or because some people just don't seem to care.

For more detail on some of these points and enough straw men arguments to feed a herd of the finest farm animals:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=104713

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by EricH

I think what it is is that the teams want to know when they're likely to see results. It's nice that it's a priority. But is it a priority like polishing the 2013 FRC game (due out early next January) or like finalizing the FTC and FLL games (August/September timeframe, IIRC, though from a different part of FIRST)? Or is it to be done sooner, say in July? In short, is there a deadline for a root cause location/problem solution, and if so when is it?

Basically, we'd like to know where FIRST is in solving the problem. If FIRST were to issue some form of status update, via Bill's Blog or email blast or whatever means they choose to use, on a regular basis, that would probably go a great ways towards soothing a lot of the ruffled feathers among FRC teams who have been squawking about "We've been saying it's the field not our robot for a while now! What are you going to do about it now that you have evidence?" for a few days now.

I think it's a gesture of good faith. It's also a suggestion to help get progress moving on a solution. Deadlines are a great motivator for some reason (though I'd imagine a public failure is at least as good a motivator).

I agree and would add that since it appears FIRST insists on pulling this problem inside where no one can see what's going on or provide insight this is the obligation they create for themselves.

It's also not much of an educational experience for the students or the community because it's all very cloak and dagger.

[techhelpbb]

I split this because it's not essential to my posts above:

Several times on this forum and elsewhere I've seen calls for a more integrated control system. One advantage being to reduce the number of failure points within that control system that the students and robot designs themselves can contribute to. Essentially make one brick to swap out.

FIRST has within it's capability to dramatically reduce the points in the control system, regardless of the existing number of points to monitor, that can induce issues that amount to power quality issues. At the moment they've focused on field monitoring and while that's essential to the whole communications argument, field monitoring does little or even nothing for the longer standing issues of the power quality on the robot.

I encourage FIRST to not redesign the control system into something where the students make FRC like FLL (Lego NXT). I realize that FIRST doesn't want to make the electronics skill required to build the robot too high. On the other hand the design and deployment safety mechanisms they put in place to mitigate the electronics engineering skill issue has perversely made the robot power quality issues much harder, sometimes near impossible, to deal with. We need more monitoring on the robots at all times to remove power quality issues, either at our choice, or built into the control system like the battery monitor.

FIRST needs to find a happy balance.