[FRC Blog] Einstein Report Released

[Don Wright]

The problem with not naming the person/team is that the entire FIRST community is now guessing who it is...and probably coming up its a few ideas (some come immediately to mind for me). Is that a better alternative...to have people guessing forever? Or wait until next season when the person, who might be a popular person in FIRST suddenly isn't involved anymore?

[Billfred]

To anyone still showing a bit of mercy for "the individual", the standard quote from Woodie came to mind (source):

Originally Posted by Woodie Flowers, emphasis mine

“Obviously it would not make sense to endorse ‘asinine professionalism’ or ‘gracious incompetence.’ It is, however, completely consistent with the FIRST spirit to encourage doing high quality well informed work in a manner that leaves everyone feeling valued. Gracious professionalism seems to be a good descriptor for part of the ethos of FIRST. It is part of what makes FIRST different and wonderful.
Gracious professionalism has purposefully been left somewhat undefined because it can and should mean different things to each of us. We can, however, outline some of its possible meanings. Gracious attitudes and behaviors are win-win. Gracious folks respect others and let that respect show in their action. Professionals possess special knowledge and are trusted by society to use that knowledge responsibly. Thus, gracious professionals make a valued contribution in a manner pleasing to others and to themselves.
In FIRST, one of the most straightforward interpretations of gracious professionalism is that we learn and compete like crazy, but treat one another with respect and kindness in the process. We try to avoid leaving anyone feeling like they are losers. No chest thumping barbarian tough talk, but no sticky sweet platitudes either. Knowledge, pride and empathy comfortably blended.
Understanding that gracious professionalism works is not rocket science. It is, however, missing in too many activities. At FIRST it is alive and well. Please help us take care of it.

The 2012 FRC manual leaves out the first and last paragraphs (note to Frank for next year...), but to me it forms the most basic code of FIRST's programs. I'd have a hard time buying an argument that the individual's actions are compatible with what's above.

[shawnz]

Originally Posted by dodar

That have live match information? Not even the FIRST database has live match-by-match data. It couldnt be anything else other than the FMS system this person was looking at.

Perhaps he was *entering* the live match data. This is how our team's scouting system works currently, and I know a number of teams use similar techniques.

Originally Posted by Billfred

I'd have a hard time buying an argument that the individual's actions are compatible with what's above.

I should hope nobody is suggesting it is! I think the argument here was whether the anonymity granted to the person was justified or not, rather than the blacklisting.

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by Gregor

If you honestly believe that you can draw parallels between not attempting the coop bridge with very very good teams and deliberately sabotaging the premier FRC matches, I don't even know what to say...

If you think the situation at GTRE was as simple as "not cooping with elite teams" then sorry, you need to get your head checked. The problem at GTRE was teams trying to influence the coop points of matches they were not involved in through conspiracy and, in some case involving rookies, bullying ("Nobody will like you if you balance with these teams"). Not cooping is a valid strategy. Trying to convince other teams not to coop is not. FIRST made this clear at the Week 3 events through a Team Update (IIRC), an emailed team notice, and Dean's own comments at the Montreal Regional.

Sidenote: I don't believe the events on Einstein are related to those at GTRE. The GTRE issues could have occurred anywhere where there are two elite teams that stand heads and shoulders above even the 3rd best robot. Imagine, for example, a Michigan where the only powerhouses are 469 and 67. Or a California with just 254 and 1717. These two teams pair up and dominate year after year. Of course this builds up some level of animosity. This isn't a Canada issue; Canada just so happens to be where this issue surfaced.

_____
As for 1114's official statement, I agree wholeheartedly. Mistakes were made, purposeful interference happened. Don't hide it. The great thing about 1114 asking for a public apology is that, if they were in the same situation, they would apologize in a heartbeat. Reputation can be rebuilt, but suspicion can't be dissolved without clear answers.

We are constantly told that the Einstein teams are the Best of the Best, not only because they have the greatest robots/strategic minds of that year, but because they are class acts. Apologizing admits that there may be something amiss in team culture, or that the individual was a bad apple but wasn't originally thought to be. Admittance is a very good first step in the right direction. I for one would applaud any team that came forward to admit that a member committed sabotage and also said they are working to fix the problem in their own team.

Keep the individual anonymous, and I'm ok with that. But it's the team's responsibility to make sure that EVERY team member "gets FIRST." I think it's a good thing that an individual's actions impact the reputation of a team. It forces a team to look at itself and intentionally weed out bad apples and turn them into glorious, shiny red ones with no worms. Asking for an apology for being unable to do this, in my opinion, is justified.

[BornaE]

Any laptop with a wireless can would show the list of teams on the field since the team number is used as the SSID.

Originally Posted by shawnz

Perhaps he was *entering* the live match data. This is how our team's scouting system works currently, and I know a number of teams use similar techniques.



I should hope nobody is suggesting it is! I think the argument here was whether the anonymity granted to the person was justified or not, rather than the blacklisting.

[techhelpbb]

What concerns me the most is that someone who finds out who or thinks they did will think it is their job to play hero.

All it takes is someone to start writing letters or going after this person professionally outside of the parameters of what FIRST deems required.

FIRST is the biggest victim here. Not even the teams. There is a valid tangible dollar amount of damage done here. Beyond FIRST these teams have no one to turn to ask for compensation. I really think it is FIRST who should decide how they dish out the punishment and we should respect that. If we do anything more I think you are starting to stray into a place where you put your personal concerns above FIRST.

I personally have seen what happens when just a few people decide they know better how something should work and will take it upon themselves to go that extra step to have things a way they prefer. It rarely ends up the way they thought because they might not speak for the majority who has a less personal investment in their more personal motives.

I can only point out that we as members of a community are dedicated to gracious professionalism and activity to support that which itself represents that ideal. If this person became known and a few people decided to go even a little too far we as a community would be tarnished but it would then be a self fulfilling cycle.

Let us move forward into the future. Let us additionally focus this extra outrage on the continuing risk that someone might know someone that might try to do this again. If you know that someone is specifically intending to interfere in match operations and has taken action to actually make that interference happen please tell someone. Much of the annoyance with this could have been mitigated if someone tapped this person on the shoulder sooner and discussed it. Security is everyone's responsibility. Not just AirTight or FIRST. To me it really is the same as any number of more common safety hazards that crop up all the time.

[Libby K]

Okay, it's that time again where Libby chimes in with a seemingly unpopular opinion.
I want to stress that I am not trying to be accusatory, and I'm also not speaking for any of my teams, for FIRST, or for my family.
This is all me, and only me.

Originally Posted by Billfred

As much as I can, I use the concept of gracious professionalism as an internal yardstick. However, I have a really hard time believing anyone would think that the correct way of carrying yourself when in possession of an issue like this is to disrupt the climax of FIRST's largest, most-anticipated, most-covered event.

If you'd like to make a point, to an FTA, email someone at FIRST. Don't ruin the biggest event of the year and make a fool (or, you know, a criminal) out of yourself in the process.

I personally hope for the team to come forward. If this individual were acting alone, and the team can honestly say they didn't know about it, then the team should be able to say "Yes, Jimmy (or Susie) McHacker was a part of our team, we didn't know at the time what was going on, but our team didn't condone the behavior and they are no longer on the team because of their action. We're really sorry." (Obviously, being banned from the team is no longer necessary since they're barred from FIRST, but that's not the point.) Yes, there will still be people in this community that will reflect the actions of the individual onto the team... but those people would be wrong, and we'd know that.

Originally Posted by Gigakaiser

...the team (or whoever on the team is aware of the individual) should release the information and acknowledge that it was an individual, not a team effort. Imagine the reputation of the team if the information came out sometime in the future by another source - it would not look good. If the team came out it would be seen as a gracious step forward...

Originally Posted by Gigakaiser

Should the team then remain anonymous to avoid potential scrutiny? Again, what if the information was released by another source? Coming forward now would be the best way to avoid scrutiny at a greater scale.

^Exactly. It looks far better for the team to come forward now than have it disclosed at a later date by another team/individual... and knowing our community, that's going to happen at some point.

Originally Posted by LeelandS

I'm sure (or at least, I hope) this person is truly remorseful for their actions. If they have seen a fraction of these responses, I'm sure they'd know that their actions deeply upset a large number of people. The last thing this person would need is to be forever known as "The person who ruined Einstein." If their identity were to become public, let's face it: No FIRSTer in the world could look at them the same way. They would be faced with eyes of raw disdain and disappointment. All respect from the FIRST community would be lost, or at least severely damaged. I, personally, don't think anyone deserves that.

You're taking an incredible moral high road, and saying that this person feels sorry. Good for you for believing in people, but what if they don't?! Unfortunately I've seen plenty of attitudes that say "I'm GLAD Einstein screwed up, because FIRST sucks and they had it coming". Paraphrased from many emails/FB comments/tweets/what have you, but that's the sentiment.

Originally Posted by Gregor

For this one person who deliberately tried to sabotage the event, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who would condone in. Lets remember that one rogue person shouldn't be regarded as a significant change in FIRST culture.

I think you meant 'condemn' and not 'condone' but your point shines through. I sincerely hope this individual was acting alone and that this does not reflect a change in FIRST culture.

--

Regardless of the individual I want to thank the wonderful people at FIRST HQ, the volunteers that helped with the testing process, and, of course, the Einstein teams. This is the biggest disaster FIRST has ever seen and you all handled it with class and professionalism. Thank you for being shining examples of what FIRST teams and participants should be, even during the bad times.

I'll leave you with a Woodie quote...

"Understanding that gracious professionalism works is not rocket science. It is, however, missing in too many activities. At FIRST it is alive and well. Please help us take care of it."

Thank you, all, for helping us take care of it.

[Nate Laverdure]

Wow, I just found this:

14 Jul 2012 10:00 EST
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SAMSUNG TO WITHDRAW FROM AMERICAN MARKET FOLLOWING ATTACK BY ROGUE DEVICE

The actions of the individual Samsung Galaxy Nexus device that deliberately disrupted the 28 Apr 2012 Einstein matches were reprehensible and unjustifiable. Samsung vehemently denies any knowledge of, or participation in, these activities. These actions were undertaken without the knowledge and consent of Samsung and in no way should be considered to represent what is considered acceptable for a Samsung device.

Samsung will make all possible efforts to identify and bring to justice the specific device responsible for the actions of 28 Apr. In addition, Samsung is committed to prevent all future occurrences of this kind of attack by rogue devices. For this reason, Samsung and its corporate partners are taking immediate action to shut down all US and Canadian manufacturing and sales activity, followed by a phased withdrawal from the North American market. Additional details will be forthcoming.

For information contact:
Samsung Electronics America
85 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

[shawnz]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Wow, I just found this:

[...]

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

Too subtle?

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Unfortunately I've seen plenty of attitudes that say "I'm GLAD Einstein screwed up, because FIRST sucks and they had it coming". Paraphrased from many emails/FB comments/tweets/what have you, but that's the sentiment.

I just wanna say that I personally voiced concerns about several issues that did apparently impact Einstein. I was aware of deauth and what it could do. It's part of my daily responsibility to educate myself in security issues and I knew about that for more than a year...though I never imagined that someone would intentionally do that (assuming they did it intentionally which I think we may never know).

My daily activities involve risk analysis. The shear amount of risk means that more often than mitigate all those risks personally (which in a way I have done with by prototyping some things I've offered to FIRST) I spend time writing up that risk and making it clear to other people that they accept what I deem as those risks by not taking some mitigating action (whether it's the one I recommend or not is up to them).

I've been a vocal advocate that the risks for an outcome like Einstein in robot power quality have been present for too long (for years). That those risks having been under communicated or under addressed could be a real problem and this report somewhat vindicates that point. FIRST is taking the position that they'll educate but the core problem remains. We build robots that crash into things, are moved frequently while not under power and the same is true for the field. Things are going to break. It doesn't matter how much you write reports people need the tools to diagnose those issues within the time frame the competition offers.

I tried to offer FIRST assistance at Einstein via communications in this forum and later via communications up to and including requests in the official forum. As a majority the risks were accepted that's not my job to do a little dance of pride about that when what I worried about happened.

It is however part of the healing process to make it clear in the aftermath that we can't ignore the underlying process that accepted this risk and insure that in the future we all more fully acknowledge the risks going in.

There are tragic moments in my life where I have pointed out risks to people and a great number of people died including dozens of friends of mine because they took a risk I deemed as reckless and complacent. You can stand there in shock and worry about laying blame or use the failed responsibilities as a tool to honor that which was lost with practical goals in mind.

I just want to make it extremely clear. I personally get no joy from being right when something bad happens I may have warned about. It reminds me every day that people often set their priorities in ways that take risks and don't know what to do once the risk is proven with consequences.

FIRST has expended a great effort with this report. However, this is hardly the end of it. This demands that FIRST consider ways to make sure that power quality issues can be analyzed with in the time frames they desire to operate. It further demands they more actively consider the security risks to their communications systems moving forward in the grander sense beyond this one deauth issue. To do anything less is to ignore the lesson cause and effect is offering.

What isn't apparent from this report because it hyper focuses on Einstein is how much of this happened years before and how much of it happened into the seeding up to Einstein. The fact is it is entirely possible that the whole of the competition was shaped by deauth and power quality issues in no small way.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Wow, I just found this:

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

I assume you are making a joke, but I can't figure out what point you are trying to make.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Wow, I just found this:

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

Considering that Samsung just release the Samsung S3 I am holding in my hand forgive me if I doubt the validity of this statement in the sense it could be taken.

Such a move would financially utterly destroy their company and in point of fact cause massive financial damage to the manufacturers that support them.

Besides they are already banned from selling the Nexus:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...amsung-s-nexus

[O'Sancheski]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Wow, I just found this:

I personally applaud this bold move from Samsung. They've understood that we won't be able to move forward as a community until the individual Galaxy Nexus phone, and Samsung as a whole, is held to account.

Do you have the source for this? Because to my understanding, Apple sued Samsung and told them to stop producing the Nexus.

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by shawnz

Too subtle?

Yeah, I guess. My fault.

All: Disregard the above, maybe I'll try again later.

[IndySam]

I am constantly amazed at how sarcasm challenged many people are Nate.