Team 548 Einstein Statement

[connor.worley]

I simply don't believe the "protest" idea. The attacker could have indefinitely delayed the match by disconnecting a robot before the match itself started. This would have been an equally effective protest, but would not have risked affecting the outcome of the matches.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by IndySam

The team should have only apologized and left it at that. No other information was necessary.

That is my opinion as well.

Based on multiple other reports, I'm going to give little weight to what the now-banned party says happened, and I'm not going to apologize for that. But I will accept Team 548's statement at face value, put it behind me, move forward, and strongly encourage everyone else to do the same.

[RobotsVsKittens]

Lack of grammar is not the only way something can be poorly written. It's poorly written because it is not explicitly clear who is being referred to. Not explicit enough for the circumstances.

It makes no sense why anyone should talk about forgiveness since no party here has sought it or made extremely explicitly clear who is at fault.

On a personal level, I find the use of words like 'unfortunately' in an apology to be less than genuine. Stating the intent of someone while simultaneously not specifying who that it is we are talking about is laughable. As is the double standard of an individual not representing a team at a competition, but we're all such loyal team players to preserving anonymity.

On a related note, genuine apologies are rare in our society, so it is with a complete lack of surprise that I find many cannot identify one or misidentify it. Ah, but I digress.

[Ekcrbe]

Originally Posted by RobotsVsKittens

Lack of grammar is not the only way something can be poorly written. It's poorly written because it is not explicitly clear who is being referred to. Not explicit enough for the circumstances.

It makes no sense why anyone should talk about forgiveness since no party here has sought it or made extremely explicitly clear who is at fault.

On a personal level, I find the use of words like 'unfortunately' in an apology to be less than genuine. Stating the intent of someone while simultaneously not specifying who that it is we are talking about is laughable. As is the double standard of an individual not representing a team at a competition, but we're all such loyal team players to preserving anonymity.

On a related note, genuine apologies are rare in our society, so it is with a complete lack of surprise that I find many cannot identify one or misidentify it. Ah, but I digress.

I seriously doubt the use of improper grammar is a big deal. Let us not forget that the party apologizing is not the party at fault. If I tell you the "individual" is John Smith* of Team 548, is that better on any level than if I say it was a member of Team 548? You answer that. If you think the apology is "less than genuine", take a line from Taylor, one he used on me regarding this very subject:

"I've found that being outraged on behalf of others is often a misuse of energy."

Whether you're mad at the Robostangs, the singular individual, FIRST, or life, lamenting about the state of the world's apology writing is not going to help.

*I don't know if there is a member of Team 548 named John Smith, nor do I intend to accuse anyone on the team of being the anonymous individual.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by IanW

Even though you seem to be aware of the weight of your words, I think this indictment of Team 548 is too harsh. Your conjectures bring into question the integrity of their entire team, which I don't think is warranted. Especially considering that they apologized to the community as a whole in one of the most public manners they could manage. I truly hope that there are not many "with these beliefs," as it would indicate to me that the community has lost faith in the integrity of its peers, regardless of their reputation.

My post was and is only directed at this one mentor. Not the entire team, I praised the rest of the team for their apology. I am not questioning the integrity of 548, I am continuing to question the integrity of this one mentor's words.

[IanW]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

My post was and is only directed at this one mentor. Not the entire team, I praised the rest of the team for their apology. I am not questioning the integrity of 548, I am continuing to question the integrity of this one mentor's words.

Sorry, I guess I misread/misunderstood the intent of your post then. The point about protecting Team 548's wins made me think you referring to more than just the individual.

[JackS]

Originally Posted by Libby K

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

Emphasis mine.

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

I am continuing to question the integrity of this one mentor's words.

I am a bit disappointed by this sentiment for two reasons. First, a lot of the data in the Einstein Report is inconclusive.

Originally Posted by Einstein Report

Over the course of these tests, FRC Engineering was able to determine how to identify a failed client authentication through the log data recorded in the field access point. However, the configuration of the field access points used during the 2012 FRC competitions, including the matches on Einstein, is such that log data is not retained when the access point is powered off.

This statement, directly from the report, essentially states that the exact number of times the individual from 548 made his or her attack cannot be known, because the logs no longer exist. It is perfectly "plausible" that another individual repeated the same attack elsewhere in the dome, or some sort of other interference occurred.

Secondly, whether the individual made one attack or 100 attacks is a moot point. The individual's actions (regardless of intent) were malicious and he or she was punished accordingly. The job of the CD community is not to further scapegoat the individual for more attacks than he admitted to, as no proof exists. Instead, we should collectively be accepting of 548's generous apology (one they by no means had to provide) and we should all encourage FIRST to try and eliminate dead robots (due to control system failures) almost completely by 2014.

[Seth Mallory]

I for one am quit satisfied with team 548 statement. Team 548 is also a victim in all of this. Having a "mentor out of control" can tear the guts out of a team. You have scars inside and outside of the team that takes years to recover. It is time to let team 548 work thru this and end this thread.

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Nick Lawrence

Remember, FIRST did not cause this. It was a bug in the newer Field AP firmware that created this security hole.

-Nick

If your car breaks, do you blame Delphi? Unless you are a huge car dork or work for an OEM, probably not. There are plenty of examples in modern industry where the supplier is the cause of an issue, but everyone still points the finger at the final assembler. Since it is your brand attached to the final product, you've got to ensure that you want your brand on it, even if you didn't build all the parts (and these days, no one builds all the parts).

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

What he/she did was a good thing at the wrong time, the worst time.

This is absolutely a bridge too far. Ethics are important.

[Gray Adams]

Originally Posted by JackS

I am a bit disappointed by this sentiment for two reasons. First, a lot of the data in the Einstein Report is inconclusive.

This statement, directly from the report, essentially states that the exact number of times the individual from 548 made his or her attack cannot be known, because the logs no longer exist. It is perfectly "plausible" that another individual repeated the same attack elsewhere in the dome, or some sort of other interference occurred.

I want to echo this point. By the mentor's own admission, he used the attack, but why should we believe his admission of guilt isn't the full story from his perspective? Every single one of us has been looking for someone or something to blame for what happened on Einstein. The full report has brought up a multitude of points of failure during the finals, and its really not hard to believe the answer to all of this is not as simple as blaming this all on one mentor. As soon as news broke that there was an attack during play, all of the failures on the field were attributed to that. But things just aren't that simple, and we discovered how many root causes for all the different problems there really were. But I firmly believe we still know far too little to place all of the blame on this one attacker. With thousands of incredibly smart people in the dome, its entirely possible that someone else used this attack, whether or not their team was on einstein, and whether or not they were fully aware of their actions.

We've heard 2 sides of the story so far, and unless someone would like to point out something I missed that puts them in direct conflict, I think it's only fair to evaluate this based on what we know.

Everyone was feeling a lot of emotions at the moment, and the attack in response could have been from a moment of desperation. I'm not condoning what happened, but I am trying to understand it.

[jason701802]

Originally Posted by JackS

The individual's actions (regardless of intent) were malicious and he or she was punished accordingly.

Malice is entirely dependent upon intent, I think 'destructive' might be closer to what you were looking for.

[Taylor]

Two thoughts:

1. I can't imagine what next year will be like for the rookie members of 548. How does that conversation go?

2. I've yet to see a post from any of the directly affected Einstein teams in this thread (There is one on the first page from a Robonaut; it points to the article and offers no opinion on the subject). My first inclination is that they are coming together privately as teams to determine exactly how they feel about it; when they've grokked it in fullness, they'll make public statements as they see fit.



My second inclination is simply there's nothing left to say.

[JosephC]

I'd like to start off by thanking the Robostangs for their statement. It takes a lot of guts to put yourself up in front of the Chief Delphi community. Your team still has as much respect from me as it did before.

One thing that no one has really thought of is the affects this has on the students that are part of that team. Regardless of what actually happened, how do you think they feel? I know that if one of my trusted mentors did something like this it'd take a long time for me to hold my head up high at a competition again.

Arguing about whether or not the individuals acts were in good taste is pointless, nothing we say or do now can change what happened on Einstein. The same go with whether or not 548's apology was written by lawyers. Does it matter in the grand scheme of things? It is, after all, still an apology to the community.

DISCLAIMER: This post is filled with my own thought's and opinions and does not necessarily reflect those of my team.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Taylor

I've yet to see a post from any of the directly affected Einstein teams in this thread (There is one on the first page from a Robonaut; it points to the article and offers no opinion on the subject). My first inclination is that they are coming together privately as teams to determine exactly how they feel about it; when they've grokked it in fullness, they'll make public statements as they see fit.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...04&postcount=5

Originally Posted by Taylor

My second inclination is simply there's nothing left to say.

Bolded for emphasis.

[techhelpbb]

Originally Posted by IndySam

Yes it's forgivable if the person is honest and truly seeks forgiveness but it is not just about forgiveness. The penalty needs to be so harsh that no one ever considers doing something like this again.

Lifetime ban is not only appropriate it's necessary.

No one ever notes a problem again?

No one ever clicks on a list of networks again and misses the button?

No one ever asks why documenting issues has to reach the public level?

No one is ever curious again?

No one ever considers using this particular ISM band again like this?

I would feel much more comfortable with harsh punishment if you couldn't trip over this.