[FRC Blog] Einstein Report Released

[JamesTerm]

As I read the report, I've been looking for two specific points of interest:

1. Why was the there a significant amount of failures for just the red alliance teams?

2. Special interest in how much vision tracking contributes to network traffic, as we (beta team)... were concerned of overwhelming traffic from this for teams that wanted to process vision via driver station.


I believe point 2 with the network capping addresses this fear for future games... but I would like pursue this with actual numbers (not here in CD obviously). In short I'd want to know if the mjpeg frames cause a significant load in the network traffic, as I want to consider using mp4 compression going forward. I think FIRST action items will address some of this... I'm looking forward to getting these numbers!


As for point 1... this is something I observed while watching the Archimedes elimination matches, and the report also reflects this for the Einstein matches. I've observed that red alliances usually have won (e.g. 90%) this year in our 2 regionals (I wonder how true that is for other regionals). There may be some correlation of this and the higher seed being on the red team. I noticed for Archimedes elimination, an overwhelming victory from the blue alliances.


I don't want to talk about the political stuff but just want to throw some general things out there... 1. Is there a scapegoat political agenda going on? 2. No one can keep a secret as all will be revealed to those who want to know about it... it is just a matter of time. Why? friends tell friends, and those friends tell friends... and well you get the picture... just like FB itself.

(P.S. I do not want to know... I'm an engineer not a politician)

[JosephC]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Video here

RSL is clearly flashing while it's dead, suggesting the cRIO is still running. Symptoms match what the report says happens with FCA.

This may have been caused by our Ethernet cable that connects to the radio loosening to the point that it was no longer transmitting data to the cRIO.

After Finals Match 1 on Newton we took the robot out to be examined. we noticed that the Ethernet cable was slightly loose, so we re-zip tied it to the radio. After that we ran fine in Finals Match 2. I'm not saying that this was 100% the reason why we lost control, but it does appear to be so, at least to me.

I'm leaving this here as a reminder to all teams, rookies to veterans, to double check EVERYTHING before going onto the field, you never know what could go wrong.

[OliviaG]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree with torihoelscher!

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by JamesTerm

... 1. Is there a scapegoat political agenda going on?

What do you mean by this question?

[Dad1279]

Originally Posted by JamesTerm

As I read the report, I've been looking for two specific points of interest:

1. Why was the there a significant amount of failures for just the red alliance teams?
.....
As for point 1... this is something I observed while watching the Archimedes elimination matches, and the report also reflects this for the Einstein matches. I've observed that red alliances usually have won (e.g. 90%) this year in our 2 regionals .........

I just counted 71 red wins out of 150 matches for Archimedes... 47% red, 53% blue.

47R/95 for Alamo = 49.5% Red wins
31R/76 for Dallas = 40.8% Red wins

Disclaimer: I only counted once, so I may be off by a percent or two. Perhaps someone can crunch the numbers for all the regionals?

[qzrrbz]

Originally Posted by Dad1279

I just counted 71 red wins out of 150 matches for Archimedes... 47% red, 53% blue.

47R/95 for Alamo = 49.5% Red wins
31R/76 for Dallas = 40.8% Red wins

Disclaimer: I only counted once, so I may be off by a percent or two. Perhaps someone can crunch the numbers for all the regionals?

I have to think he's talking about elimination matches, where there *should* be a decided red bias.

[Racer26]

Yup. There should be a fairly strong Red bias in Elims, especially so in the QFs.

Side note of interest, at ON2 (GTR-West) this year, 2056 played their first Elimination matches at a regional on the blue alliance. Every other regional, they've won from the #1 seeded alliance, who never plays with blue bumpers.

[ouellet348]

To those that believe that the team of the INDIVIDUAL should hesitate to come forward, let's think about our culture for a minute.

In my experience, FIRST is about accountability and responsibility. We have an accountability to others, both for our good decisions and our bad. We have a responsibility to make the world a better place than when we arrived in it. This means we hold ourselves accountable for our mistakes and celebrate our successes.

On my team I've made mistakes. We all do. We don't hide them from others. We learn from them. We discuss them. We are accountable to ourselves but also those within our community. I know for a fact at certain points during my time on the team many mentors would have called me an arrogant jerk, and they'd be right. But the culture of our team and of FIRST allowed me to accept my mistakes and grow. Now those same mentors have hired me at their companies and have given me great recommendations because I made myself accountable for my actions and learned from them.

Now about this individual. I do believe that they are beyond being forgiven. Their actions have a malicious intent that I believe is clearly illustrated by the actions of FIRST in dealing with them. FIRST doesn't reserve that kind of action for an accident. The individual's actions were deeply hurtful to everyone who has even been touched by FIRST, and I believe that they don't really care given,

1.Their actions
2. A lack of an apology thus far

That said they will only be anonymous for so long. Eventually the community will have a name and a number to go with it.

My opinion is that team should come forward. Help the community heal and acknowledge that a team member turned out to be a different person than you thought. Don't help protect this person for your own anonymity. That can only last so long. If you truly did nothing wrong no one who matters and has half a brain would hold you accountable for something that you are not to blame for. Don't protect someone who chose to make a decision that terrible. Address the situation in a manner befitting the quality of the community we are all a part of.

The teams targeted are some of the best. Ever. They have worked to excel to a point that most of us will never reach. They should be celebrated for reaching that level and helping inspire others to do so. I honestly think they deserve commendation for simply maintaining a positive attitude despite the malicious actions of some idiots over the years (and yes they are idiots, no apologies). They deserve an apology and an explanation. Anyone in their place does.

In short, to everyone. Be accountable. Acknowledge success and mistakes, and grow from them.

Just my thoughts on a bad situation that had a fortune to be dealt with by some amazing people.

[Ether]

Originally Posted by Dad1279

Perhaps someone can crunch the numbers for all the regionals?

Attached Excel2000 spreadsheet is from the FRC Twitter data feed.

The usual caveats about the FRC Twitter data feed apply.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by EricH

...
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, 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.

Each team affected by this has a right to be angry at the person who perpetrated the situation. But if four years later the team comes forward or is exposed, and those teams hold a grudge and still can't forgive the team the individual was connected to, then those teams have a GP issue. I would hope that stigma wouldn't last too long that far down the road.

Everything else is spot on.

[JamesTerm]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Yup. There should be a fairly strong Red bias in Elims, especially so in the QFs.

Cool you and qzrrbz know what I'm getting at... I noticed a strong Red bias in my observations of regional elimination matches (Dad1279, qzrrbz is right I was talking about eliminations only) and I believe it to due to how the higher seed is on the red alliance. Now then when I observed the outcome of Archimedes eliminations... I noticed the blue wins as the #2 seed (blue) wins the division. Yeah... may not be significant, but noticeable to me.

Ether: Thanks for this data... it confirms what 1075guy and I have observed in regards to the red bias in elims. From this global scope xls document everything is probably as we'd expect. However, the FRC report itself does show a significant amount of failures for red alliance teams. Also, there was one match in particular that we played where we observed 2 simultaneous red alliance failures that got me thinking about this during the rest of the competition.

[JamesTerm]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

What do you mean by this question?

I was hoping for an answer or opinion, not another question.
It should be self-explanitory... if not then please just disregard.

[Libby K]

Originally Posted by ouellet348

That said they will only be anonymous for so long. Eventually the community will have a name and a number to go with it.

My opinion is that team should come forward. Help the community heal and acknowledge that a team member turned out to be a different person than you thought. Don't help protect this person for your own anonymity. That can only last so long. If you truly did nothing wrong no one who matters and has half a brain would hold you accountable for something that you are not to blame for. Don't protect someone who chose to make a decision that terrible. Address the situation in a manner befitting the quality of the community we are all a part of.

This is what I mean. The situation in which the team formerly associated with the individual steps forward and makes a statement will create a much better atmosphere for themselves than the situation where the community eventually finds out who this person is and publishes their name and association. As much as I think that illustrates the bad parts of the internet, it's more than likely going to happen because this IS such an emotionally charged issue for so many.

If you were that team, wouldn't you want to admit that, like Alex said, this person had a different character than you thought... rather than get called out on a public forum before you get your chance to speak for yourself?

I don't approve of a witch-hunt for the person involved, but I do believe the team should get a chance to step forward before those with the torches and pitchforks get them first.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Libby K

This is what I mean. The situation in which the team formerly associated with the individual steps forward and makes a statement will create a much better atmosphere for themselves than the situation where the community eventually finds out who this person is and publishes their name and association. As much as I think that illustrates the bad parts of the internet, it's more than likely going to happen because this IS such an emotionally charged issue for so many.

If you were that team, wouldn't you want to admit that, like Alex said, this person had a different character than you thought... rather than get called out on a public forum before you get your chance to speak for yourself?

I don't approve of a witch-hunt for the person involved, but I do believe the team should get a chance to step forward before those with the torches and pitchforks get them first.

I disagree...I don't see how a team's statement would be any different announcing it themselves or after the "witch-hunt" finishes. I, for one, would feel no different feelings for the team other than, if they announced it themselves, saying, 'that's bold', and then moving on with the same 'not the team's fault, etc...' feelings. But as EricH greatly said earlier, that team will forever have their name associated with this, whether that's the right thing or not; it's what will happen.

The longer the secret is kept, the better. If the team name never is revealed other than mumblings at regionals(ie. "Yeah I hear it was that mentor for team XXXX"), then that is even better.


Also, has anyone considered the possibility that the team themselves don't even know about it, and that the perpetrator is passing it off as leaving for other reasons? Part of me wants to view that as a case, but part of me has reasons why that wouldn't work (how would FIRST get into contact with the individual other than through the main team contact? unless that person kept it a complete secret/between them and the perpetrator).

[DominickC]

I'm happy for the FMS Whitepaper.