Ethics of 2 teams building 2 identical robots

[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.