[FRC Blog] Einstein Report Released

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

@techhelpbb:

The majority of teams were running the affected firmwares for the robot radios. You wouldn't have to be sure. It would affect most teams, and its unlikely you would have ended up with a full alliance of teams that couldn't be targeted in this way.

Okay but the effected Cisco firmware was not present until week 4 per the report.
Also I personally have Team 25s A version AP they traded me in an off season event.
It had been acting strange on them so they swapped it at a venue before Championship.
It is on my workbench next to me right now.
I gave them a brand new unit in exchange at an off season event.

The thing is that this issue did not exist until week 4. Team 25 had a version B so we know that version was floating around.
Someone would have to have discovered this issue from week 4, assumed that no one would swap the radio like 25 did for the sake of it, and had to have a grudge against that one alliance....then decided to continuously interfere only to have some fortune that wiring and other issues work to their advantage?

Seems far fetched. More importantly Team 25 had issues with that A version before that venue. If the target is 25 why bother to do it this way?

Originally Posted by 1075guy

The people that make up FIRST are some of the smartest people on the planet.

Just for clarification, I've met some real dumb people involved in FIRST. Involvement in an organization that celebrates Gracious Professionalism doesn't mean a person follows those principles, and it certainly doesn't make someone smart.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

While I would love to agree with EricH et al, I don't.

The people that make up FIRST are some of the smartest people on the planet. We can read between lines, look for evidence, and investigate. Many people already know who is responsible, and many more already know what team they were associated with. Lots of people will do their own investigation into what went on.

I recognize that some people will forever associate the team with the interference, HOWEVER, I think that with time (and not much more time at that), the information will come out from another source, and that will make the lasting impression much worse than if it is admitted to and apologized for by the team.

To those conducting their own investigation: Leave the pitchforks and torches at home, please. Ditto for the tar and feathers.

What happens if the team is released now versus later?

Now, while emotions are running high, the team would probably end up on every blacklist in FRC. That means that nobody will want to deal with them. The team sponsors get wind of it, and possibly cut the team's funding. The team potentially folds due to the combination of lack of funds and stigma associated with being on everybody's "Don't pick them or accept them" list.

But what if you let it go for a year? Two years? Even four years?

Now we've got a new issue to deal with. A new game (and hopefully a flawless run in terms of comm issues) has left last year behind, and we've focused on a rule we don't like again. A different rule. A different issue. The team in question has had time to get some turnover--and to, if they choose, release that they were the team in question. The Einstein Incident has passed into memory--a painful memory, but one that can be looked back on without as much emotional turmoil. Two years, and there is more turnover. More memory loss/burying. By four years, there's probably been a complete student turnover, and possibly a large mentor turnover. Then you quietly release that such-and-such a team was at the root of some of the Einstein Incident--and people wonder what you're talking about. They go back, and go "Oh. That."


Now, I'm not saying that the team won't escape any consequences--I know enough about blacklists to know that some actions will put teams on them for years and years. As some of the top teams know who the offending team is, or have a reasonable guess, that team probably will run up against them--but not with them, due to blacklist--in eliminations at some point. But being on the blacklist of top teams versus being on the blacklist of every team that has one--well, if I was in that situation, I'd rather have somebody willing to play on my alliance in the eliminations.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by techhelpbb

The thing is that this issue did not exist until week 4. Team 25 had a version B so we know that version was floating around.
Someone would have to have discovered this issue by week 4, assumed that no one would swap the radio like 25 did for the sake of it, and had to have a grudge against that one alliance....then decided to continuously interfere only to have some fortune that wiring and other issues work to their advantage?

Seems far fetched. More importantly Team 25 had issues with that A version before that venue. If the target is 25 why bother to do it this way?

Why are you focussing on 25? As you mentioned, 25 had version B at Championship (and so did 16). They were protected (whether they realized it or not) from the FCA vulnerability because of it.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Why are you focussing on 25? As you mentioned, 25 had version B at Championship (and so did 16). They were protected (whether they realized it or not) from the FCA vulnerability because of it.

Simply because Team 25 had a working A version router that kept having issues on fields prior to this. So they swapped it.

Why did their A version have issues like that before that then have them go away when the B version was added. Perhaps someone targeted them before that.

They told me that swapping that unit was all they had to do to fix their mysterious failures.

I specifically handed them a new AP out of my own pocket cost because I wanted to see if I could find something in there to account for the issue.

I did the same for another team as well.

[Meredith Novak]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I also suspect that the 12 teams (or at least their representatives present at the investigation weekend) probably know, and were asked not to talk.

Not true. I was there on Einstein with our alliance and at the testing. The only think I KNOW is that is was no one on my team - our phones were off. We remember the days when you would be tossed from an event if you were seen with a wireless device near the competition field.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Libby K

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.

And what if they don't? What's the proper course of action if they have no remorse?

Should we continue punishing them until they break down and say their wrong? They've already been blacklisted, now we should publicly out them? What if that doesn't work? Should we continue to "turn the screws" until we see them suffer?

Originally Posted by 1075guy

As I recall (I've only been to CMP once), the number of people allowed fieldside at Einstein would be restricted to the drive teams of those teams participating on Einstein, plus some volunteers.

That leaves a VERY small number indeed.

While I haven't been to St. Louis, that's simply wasn't true in Atlanta. I was field side on Einstein myself in 2009, despite not being a volunteer or participant on an Einstein alliance. There are numerous people who find avenues to be field side at Championship.

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Also, 1717 in this video. Symptoms match again.

According to this post, 1717's issues were caused by a bad cable on the robot.

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Why are you focussing on 25? As you mentioned, 25 had version B at Championship (and so did 16). They were protected (whether they realized it or not) from the FCA vulnerability because of it.

Because he's on team 11 from Mt. Olive, New Jersey located about an hour from the home of Team 25. He's had personal interactions with team 25 on the issue at hand and knew of their usage of that firmware.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Meredith Novak

Not true. I was there on Einstein with our alliance and at the testing. The only think I KNOW is that is was no one on my team - our phones were off. We remember the days when you would be tossed from an event if you were seen with a wireless device near the competition field.

Also, your team (as well as 25 and 180) were specifically cleared of guiltiness

Originally Posted by EricH

Now, I'm not saying that the team won't escape any consequences--I know enough about blacklists to know that some actions will put teams on them for years and years. As some of the top teams know who the offending team is, or have a reasonable guess, that team probably will run up against them--but not with them, due to blacklist--in eliminations at some point. But being on the blacklist of top teams versus being on the blacklist of every team that has one--well, if I was in that situation, I'd rather have somebody willing to play on my alliance in the eliminations.

This. It's a shame for that team, and I'm sure the teams involved that have their reasonable guesses have harsh feelings towards that team, but there is absolutely no need for all of FIRST to be against that team as well.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Meredith Novak

...our phones were off. We remember the days when you would be tossed from an event if you were seen with a wireless device near the competition field.

I remember those days, too.

I was a field volunteer at CMP (Archimedes) this year, but my crew was not selected to work the field on Einstein. While walking toward the stands before the finals, I passed the field volunteer crew that had been selected -- they were getting a briefing from their VC, and one of the items she emphasized was "turn off the Wifi on your phone."

[jakemochas]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Also, 1717 in this video. Symptoms match again.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

According to this post, 1717's issues were caused by a bad cable on the robot.

Several weeks ago we posted this response

Originally Posted by jakemochas

We have not been able to determine why our robot died in any of our matches. Our Robot died on Friday in Qualification Match 101 on red 1. On Saturday, our robot died in Quarter-Finals Matches 1 and 3 on red 1. Finally, our robot died in Semi-Final Match 1 on Red 3. We died on Red 3 and Red 1 so our original thinking about it only having to do with red 1 was ultimately disproven.

We have thoroughly investigated our communication failures to the best of our abilities and at this time we still do not know the cause of the failures.

[jakemochas]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Also, 1717 in this video. Symptoms match again.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

According to this post, 1717's issues were caused by a bad cable on the robot.

Several weeks ago we posted this response:

Originally Posted by jakemochas

We have not been able to determine why our robot died in any of our matches. Our Robot died on Friday in Qualification Match 101 on red 1. On Saturday, our robot died in Quarter-Finals Matches 1 and 3 on red 1. Finally, our robot died in Semi-Final Match 1 on Red 3. We died on Red 3 and Red 1 so our original thinking about it only having to do with red 1 was ultimately disproven.

We have thoroughly investigated our communication failures to the best of our abilities and at this time we still do not know the cause of the failures.

[Barry Bonzack]

I do not know the individual involved, or what his/her motives were. If I were to meet the person, I would say this.

I'm sure you are aware of the hurt, shock, dismay, and costs that your actions have caused our community. In FIRST, we are taught to be gracious professionals. Grace is defined as this:

mercy; clemency; pardon: He was saved by an act of grace from the governor. Synonyms: lenity, leniency, reprieve. Antonyms: harshness.

I'm sure you have volunteered your free time for the betterment of students in the past, and for that I thank you. I extend the benefit of doubt that whatever the motives, there is a possibility you meant to do good and chose an extremely incorrect course of action for doing so, which I hope you now see was a mistake. I forgive you of your actions, and wish you the best to all of your future endeavors separate from our organization.

Sincerely,
Barry B

[Greg McKaskle]

Since folks are attempting to identify FCA failures from videos and data from other events, let me share some diagnostic detail. In particular, a blinking RSL on a robot that isn't moving does not mean FCA.

If a robot radio never connects to the field at all, it is something else.
If it connects to the field but stops moving ...
Does the DS indicate that it is connected to the robot? The alliance wall light also indicates whether communication is successful.
If it shows battery voltage and other signs of communication, it is something else.
If there is no communication with the robot, it is time to determine if the radio and cRIO are on or off. The RSL doesn't convey much info, but if it is active, the cRIO is up and at least some of the user code is active.

That leaves us with the radio. The LEDs on the front show whether it is in AP or bridge mode and whether it is bridged.

The odd symptoms that point towards FCA are a robot that can be pinged even though no communications succeed and the robot will either return too quickly to be a radio reboot or will not return at all.

The reason the report mentions cRIO reboot times was to try and identify definitively whether other failures could fit the symptoms. Unlike the radio, this is dependent on the team's code and needs to be measured for each robot.

Greg McKaskle

[torihoelscher]

I think we should learn from this and make sure it doesnt happen again. FIRST has done a great job to handle this situation. FIRST asks us to be gracious and professional even to the people we dont like, if we do not act gracious then how are we any different from the individual? Everyone makes mistakes.

[plnyyanks]

I told myself I'd wait 24 hours to digest the report before posting.

First off, I think FIRST did an awesome job with this report, and totally exceeded my expectations. This is a great demonstration of the problem solving process, and it was handled extraordinarily well. Kudos.

As for the communication issues that arose, words can not express my dismay that an individual would intentionally sabotage matches like that. I think the rest of the thread has already appropriately discussed this, and I'll avoid beating the metaphorical dead horse.

With that being said, I think FIRST appropriately handled the situations they were situations very well, and I support their decision to keep the guilty party(ies) anonymous. Like EricH said, revealing the team involved would cause a long-lived association between that team and the unfortunate events caused by one individual from that team. And that's not fair to the team - the majority of which weren't involved (and probably unaware). Sure, people will find out, but as a community, we should try and respect that team and not spread rumours or encourage "public hangings" of anybody.

I know that the FIRST community is composed of some of the best people, and I believe we'll get through it eventually. Let's try and keep cool heads and avoid deepening any wounds we've picked up.