Team 548 Einstein Statement

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by JB987

For additional consideration, from Frank:

Blog Date:
Monday, August 20, 2012 - 09:38
Hello Teams,

Team 548 contacted me recently and asked if I would be willing to publish a statement from them regarding the events on Einstein on the FRC Blog. You can find their statement here. This statement represents, in part, their Steering Committee’s understanding of events that took place during the Einstein matches. To be clear, there are some differences between this understanding of events and the events as presented in the Einstein Report. FIRST continues to stand by its report. (My emphasis).

A dozen people can watch the same bank robbery and provide twelve different accounts of what happened (and likely twelve different descriptions of the burglar's appearance).

[quinxorin]

It gets you thinking, though, doesn't it? Was banning him from ever participating in FIRST again really the right thing to do?

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

It gets you thinking, though, doesn't it? Was banning him from ever participating in FIRST again really the right thing to do?

(At least) one match was tampered with knowingly and purposefully. I'm sure whoever made the final decision regarding consequences did not take it the least bit lightly.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

It gets you thinking, though, doesn't it? Was banning him from ever participating in FIRST again really the right thing to do?

I dont remember ever reading that he got a lifetime ban from FIRST.

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by dodar

I dont remember ever reading that he got a lifetime ban from FIRST.

From http://www3.usfirst.org/node/2426

In addition, FIRST has prohibited the individual from participating in any future FIRST event as a coach, mentor, volunteer or in any other capacity. This is the penalty associated with an intentional act of interference.

[Jay O'Donnell]

I think it's a good thing 548 came out and said this. I very much hope that they stay a respected team in our FIRST community and continue to be successful. In regards to the individual, what's been said has already been said and I don't need to go into that. Great job 548, you guys have done nothing wrong in this process, and have my respect for coming out about it.

[Nick Lawrence]

There are some major discrepancies present here. While not to start another famous "CD-Massacre" the report and this letter do not match up. I applaud 548 for coming forth with this, it takes a lot of bravery to do that. However, the information they have been given and the conclusions they came to simply don't make sense when you stack them up against the report and individual accounts of that afternoon.

Still, kudos 548 for at least making the statement in the first place.

Now we can move on a little more.

-Nick

[Libby K]

Unfortunately, creating an interruption is not the way to 'make a point'. Sorry, I'm not giving anyone a pass on this one. You're supposed to listen to staff and volunteers, and this person didn't.

Good on 548 for coming forward, although the major discrepancies between their statement and FIRST's report still leaves questions for me.

[quinxorin]

Originally Posted by Libby K

Unfortunately, creating an interruption is not the way to 'make a point'. Sorry, I'm not giving anyone a pass on this one. You're supposed to listen to staff and volunteers, and this person didn't.

Good on 548 for coming forward, although the major discrepancies between their statement and FIRST's report still leaves questions for me.

Assuming 548's account to be accurate, what would have happened if he hadn't made his point? The field personnel appear to have brushed him off originally. There may have never been an Einstein investigation, and we never would have known what happened. We also wouldn't have known that there was a vulnerability, and as such it may have been years before it was fixed.

Because the individual did this only after attempting to interact with the field personnel, I feel his actions were entirely warranted and correct.

Of course, this is all predicated on 548's version of events being correct. It seems believable to me, primarily because FIRST was so vague in this area.

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

Because the individual did this only after attempting to interact with the field personnel, I feel his actions were entirely warranted and correct.

So, intentionally attempting to alter the course of the finals (or any match via interference methods) is okay to you for the sake of protest?

Wow.

-Nick

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

So, intentionally attempting to alter the course of the finals (or any match via interference methods) is okay to you for the sake of protest?

Wow.

-Nick

It's a slippery slope.

Before passing judgment on this, I had to ask myself 'Had he been listened to, would things have played out differently?'

I'm not sure of the answer, and in turn not sure how I feel.

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by thefro526

It's a slippery slope.

Before passing judgment on this, I had to ask myself 'Had he been listened to, would things have played out differently?'

I'm not sure of the answer, and in turn not sure how I feel.

Had he been listened to, I'm not sure the finals would actually take place, after they test his theory and likely at the time not know how to fix it. I mean, it probably took a lot of smart people A LOT of time to trace the actual cause of the FCA attacks to the field AP firmware.

-Nick

[akoscielski3]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

So, intentionally attempting to alter the course of the finals (or any match via interference methods) is okay to you for the sake of protest?

Wow.

-Nick

I think he was trying to say that the action of telling the field personnel about the issue was theright thing to do. Or that coming forward after the matches was the right thing to do.




PS: ^ look at this Lawrence guy.

[quinxorin]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

So, intentionally attempting to alter the course of the finals (or any match via interference methods) is okay to you for the sake of protest?

Wow.

-Nick

No. That would not be okay with me. However, a brief (three second) interruption that does not influence match outcome is.

[Nick Lawrence]

Originally Posted by quinxorin

The interruption lasted for three seconds, according to the 548 report. Furthermore, according to the report, he did not intend to alter the outcome of the match, but instead wanted to show the field personnel that field hacking was in fact possible. That's okay with me.

The intent is okay with me too, don't get me wrong. But proving it on the biggest stage possible? That's not cool with me.

Originally Posted by quinxorin

No. That would not be okay with me. However, a brief (three second) interruption that does not influence match outcome is.

Even a three second interruption interferes with the outcome of the match. For many teams, it takes them only that much time to shoot three baskets.

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

PS: ^ look at this Lawerence guy.

^ Look at this Koscielski guy, he can't even spell my name right.

Okay, before this thread crashes, lets go back to praising 548 for saying "we're sorry."

-Nick