Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots

[Boe]

Originally Posted by Astrokid248

Do you guys partition the shop? Or do you just agree to not look at each other's robots?

No, the shop is open and we often ask questions about each other's robots and decisions but in the end the team makes their own decisions about our own robot. An example would be this year we asked what 3130's reasoning for using mechanums was.

[Astrokid248]

Boe, it's actually pretty awesome that you guys can share a workspace and knowledge and still build different robots. I guess I'd just ask too many questions for a situation like that. And Alexa, your situation makes a lot more sense now. I can definitely see why a collab would benefit your team better than simply joining the other team. And the 48/3193 collab seems pretty reasonable too, especially the idea of using identical bases and branching out from there. Clearly, the right mix of situation, proximity, and friendliness is necessary to pull it off.

My knee jerk response is to the lessons I feel like all students should take away from FIRST: communication, team work, leadership, and commraderie in even the most difficult situations. I don't think the situation with 2898 and 1510 allowed for those lessons to be taught in a positive manner. As a result, I feel like steps need to be taken to increase the level of communication between the teams, and failing that, either dissolving one team or moving a team out is the best solution.

I think the other problem here is the championship situation. In my opinion, 1510 should not have allowed to touch 2898's robot, but they should have been brought along as spectators. Just leaving behind half of the robot's designers seems wrong, but breaking an early-season promise is just as bad.
(Haha, what error, RC? )

[R.C.]

Originally Posted by Astrokid248

I think the other problem here is the championship situation. In my opinion, 1510 should not have allowed to touch 2898's robot, but they should have been brought along as spectators. Just leaving behind half of the robot's designers seems wrong, but breaking an early-season promise is just as bad.

Small Error,

-RC

[Thad House]

So to clear up some confusion I have seen. Our coach is the same for both teams, and all the mentors are the same between the teams. Back in 2009 and 2010 the students and robots were completely separated, and this worked great on a people level but had robot problems because we didnt have enough space. Then this year, we had 2 great robots, but had major people issues. Also the 2 people that were switched were the 1510 mechanical and electrical lead. The designers and programmers gladly went to spectate, and we had some of our greatest spirit we had had in years at worlds because of them.

[ttldomination]

Originally Posted by sst.thad

So to clear up some confusion I have seen. Our coach is the same for both teams, and all the mentors are the same between the teams.

There's something that doesn't entirely sit right for me here. When I think of our team, it's a single entity that's doing its best to win. The mentors on the team will do everything they can to help the students find success.

Now, by collaborating, you're already breaking some standard team barriers and sharing ideas, which isn't bad. However, I think that my actively having participants (mentors in this case) that are crossing between teams, it becomes...weird to say the least, and it sets up the precedent of being able to openly swap teams.

- Sunny G.

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by ttldomination

There's something that doesn't entirely sit right for me here. When I think of our team, it's a single entity that's doing its best to win. The mentors on the team will do everything they can to help the students find success.

Now, by collaborating, you're already breaking some standard team barriers and sharing ideas, which isn't bad. However, I think that my actively having participants (mentors in this case) that are crossing between teams, it becomes...weird to say the least, and it sets up the precedent of being able to openly swap teams.

- Sunny G.

As of now I completely agree with that, and think if we should we should find a place for the 2nd team. Its just too complicated to have 2 teams in the same shop, when the mentors and coaches are combined. And students from both teams actively build both robots. In fact we did not decide which robot was which teams until the last week of build season.

[iyermihir]

Originally Posted by sst.thad

In fact we did not decide which robot was which teams until the last week of build season.

I would say that this is your problem. This probably made the students on 1510 feel that a robot that they helped build was being used by another team at a competition that they could not attend. I am no expert on collaboration, but I would suggest that you keep the two robots separated and have each team design their own robot and clearly define which robot belongs to which team at the beginning of build season. If I was a student on 1510 who had worked on a robot that another team got to take to championships, I would be quite unhappy. You may want to talk to 254 and 1868 to see how they keep the two teams separated while sharing a lab.

[Dale]

We've had no problems building up to four pre-season BunnyBots out of one lab with the same mentors advising all the teams. No two BunnyBots were even close to being the same. Where things may have gotten complicated in the 2898/1510 case is having students crossing over between the teams working on each others robots.

Building twins seems fine if that's what you decide to do but then it should be clear up front that if neither team qualifies for Championships then the organization is sending 2898 (because 1510 couldn't get a lottery slot since they went last year) and that it will be an all-star drive team and pit crew made up of members of both 2898 & 1510.

Building twins does reduce the engineering being done which might be good if those resources are limited or less than optimal if there are students who aren't fully utilized. It is also somewhat cheaper since you only need one set of spares and one robot might be available as a practice robot if the other is on the way to champs.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by sst.thad

As of now I completely agree with that, and think if we should we should find a place for the 2nd team. Its just too complicated to have 2 teams in the same shop, when the mentors and coaches are combined.

When you say this, you may want to consider combining teams into one.

Consider this: your mentors are probably people who love helping and teaching kids, they also probably want to reach as many kids as they can with the time they volunteer. Being shared between teams is the best way they can accomplish their goal of mentoring. Also consider that being a part of both teams means that they feel obligated to both teams and bring opportunity to both, such as traveling to championships.

Why make the mentors choose between the two teams if their goal is to help as many kids as they can? It would frankly be pretty selfish.

Try to work out with the mentors what they would like to do in this situation. I'm betting they would not want to abandon one team or the other. You may find that combining into one team would be the easiest thing on the mentors.

+$0.02

[Thad House]

Something that I may not have been clear about is that the 2 students that were moved were kids that were there to just build a robot, and didnt care if they went to worlds to compete. The kids that were pushing at the beginning of season to combine the teams for world were the ones that were happy in the stands. They are choosing to not come back because of the coach, who decided to change his mind anyway without consulting the students. At the beginning of the season EVERYONE was told that the teams would be completely separate by competition. Some kids were not happy about that, but they became even more mad when the coach decided to do it anyway, without consulting anyone, including the captains of the 2 teams.

And Dale. We did use 1510's bot as a practice bot between Seattle and Worlds. And as far as I know, the 1510 students didnt mind that we did that.

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

When you say this, you may want to consider combining teams into one.

Consider this: your mentors are probably people who love helping and teaching kids, they also probably want to reach as many kids as they can with the time they volunteer. Being shared between teams is the best way they can accomplish their goal of mentoring. Also consider that being a part of both teams means that they feel obligated to both teams and bring opportunity to both, such as traveling to championships.

Why make the mentors choose between the two teams if their goal is to help as many kids as they can? It would frankly be pretty selfish.

Try to work out with the mentors what they would like to do in this situation. I'm betting they would not want to abandon one team or the other. You may find that combining into one team would be the easiest thing on the mentors.

+$0.02

Sorry about the double post, but back in 2011 we only had 1510. 2898 did not compete. The mentors have not have any issues between any of the 2 years, at least none that I know of. The issues we are having are entirely because of the students.

[devitrify]

If student members of Team A are not members of Team B, then isn't the budget limit for two collaborating teams building identical robots a limiting problem?

Under R16 of 2012:

The Bill of Materials cost of each non-KOP item must be calculated based on the unit fair market value for the material and/or labor, except for labor provided by team members (including sponsor employees who are members of the team) and shipping.

If it is agreed that student members of Team A can not be considered student members of Team B, then the labor provided by students of Team B that are not employees of the sponsor of Team A must be calculated at fair market value.

The 2012 Budget Constraint rules seem to require that the shared student efforts of two teams who are not on the member-rosters of both teams, must be small, that is:
(TeamB_student_hours * FMV_shop_rate) << (robotA_Value).
With a typical $100 shop rate, the total student hours that one team can offer another would be limited to a few tens of hours.

I might have missed an exclusion in the rules this year about a budget exclusion for student labor to other teams. I recall such an exclusion in a prior year, but I didn't see one this year.

Does R16 limit the student collaboration of two teams whose members are not on both teams rosters?
Any thoughts?

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
It's not about the robots it's about inspiration. If we (111) had the money and sponsors to register (and build) another robot design we have more than enough students that would participate. Yes, many of the mentors would support both teams, we might need a few more in key areas like software and mechanical design. But the push is to get more students involved and inspired. Any team decisions should be based on the effects to students. When we cause a smile to turn to a frown, it is our responsibility as adults to figure out what we did and fix it. On the surface I think the original issue may have been the wrong decision but I am only hearing a small part of it and certainly only one side. However, if the mentors felt that bringing along two other students would improve the overall experience for everyone, then it may have been justified. It is not easy to mentor one team let alone two, so some errors are likely to be made.
I am committed to this program because I know it works. It gets more students (than the school average) into college, it makes better adults of the students we mentor, it makes better employees of the mentors that participate, and it makes better schools in our communities.