Teams that do not bag their robots

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

If anything, I'd rather we get rid of the withholding allowance!

Yes, make it very small, like 8 pounds.

A 30 pound mechanism can consume several weeks of 16 hour days, well after bag day. Us mentors are already exhausted after 6 weeks - extending build season due to withholding allowance makes the process unbearable.

Mentor burnout is real, and a big w/h allowance exacerbates it.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Yes, make it very small, like 8 pounds.

A 30 pound mechanism can consume several weeks of 16 hour days, well after bag day. Us mentors are already exhausted after 6 weeks - extending build season due to withholding allowance makes the process unbearable.

Mentor burnout is real, and a big w/h allowance exacerbates it.

Honestly, we'd still do the work. All the same iteration, just leave the home version on the practice bot and add "fabricate at event" as an additional design requirement. It'd probably be even harder and more stressful than now, but I doubt we'd be able to live with not trying as hard to improve.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

Technically, they would not pass inspection, which (probably) means they would not be allowed to compete in the event.

I've yet to hear of this happening, but does anyone (probably inspectors at new events filled with first year teams) have a tale of this happening and what was done?

This did happen at North Star this year, with a rookie team. If you closed one eye and squinted real hard, you might have called what they had a robot. In the end, they got lectured, filled out the non-compliance form, and introduced to several veteran teams, who then spent the entire day helping them build an actual robot. The only thing their competition robot shared with what they brought in was the kit bot frame. They had to add wheels, motors, electronics, pneumatics, and a 10 pt climber. No shooter, although it was discussed.

Bag and Tag violations are interesting from an inspectors point of view. There's a judgement call to be made on how much the team benefited from the infraction. In my case, the team didn't benefit from it at all. In other cases, it may not be so clear cut.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Bag and Tag violations are interesting from an inspectors point of view. There's a judgement call to be made on how much the team benefited from the infraction. In my case, the team didn't benefit from it at all. In other cases, it may not be so clear cut.

The trouble is, there's immense pressure to let them use the robot, firstly because everyone wants them to play (for many reasons), and secondly because proving that deliberate malfeasance took place is complicated and practically impossible (I don't recall an official standard for refusing a robot due to illegal fabrication practices, nor even a consensus to that effect). The infraction form isn't itself a very big deterrent to the teams that understand the way it's typically used.

I think it would be an improvement if teams would securely submit encrypted archives containing high-quality digital images of the bagged, tagged robot (with serial number visible) every time it's locked up. They would then submit the password any time before their next event. It's not immune to forgery, but at least it makes the bagging forms less critical. (In fact, FIRST should also require and publicize tight shots of the sealed tags alone, so that the officials and fellow competitors can verify the numbers during load-in.)

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I think it would be an improvement if teams would securely submit encrypted archives containing high-quality digital images of the bagged, tagged robot (with serial number visible) every time it's locked up. They would then submit the password any time before their next event. It's not immune to forgery, but at least it makes the bagging forms less critical. (In fact, FIRST should also require and publicize tight shots of the sealed tags alone, so that the officials and fellow competitors can verify the numbers during load-in.)

So...make the system more time consuming and complex for the >99% of the teams in FIRST that don't cheat?

If we all believe that cheating is so widespread that we need to start making the process more complex and secure, then fundamentally, at the core of this program, we are losing.

[TheMadCADer]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

This still creates an issue where teams competing only at, say, a week 5 regional have much more additional time than a team that only competes at a week 1 or 2 regional. If FIRST changed the rules so you could continue to work on your robot until your actual competition, I think you'd see many people rushing to register for later events to give them more time. Just something else to consider.

Sure, lots of teams would like the extra time afforded by competing later, but it doesn't create an issue in my eyes. A team at a week 5 regional is only competing against teams at that same regional, who have all had the same amount of time. Teams already try to avoid week 1 events as it is, but it isn't a huge issue because within the regional it's still a level playing field.

[CENTURION]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

So...make the system more time consuming and complex for the >99% of the teams in FIRST that don't cheat?

If we all believe that cheating is so widespread that we need to start making the process more complex and secure, then fundamentally, at the core of this program, we are losing.

I agree, I think if we want FIRST to keep the kind of awesome culture it does, we need to show teams that we trust them. When I started in FRC, what absolutely impressed me the most was the trusting, kind, helpful culture. If we have to start implementing all sorts of rules like that to keep teams from cheating, we're already in a very bad place.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by CENTURION

I agree, I think if we want FIRST to keep the kind of awesome culture it does, we need to show teams that we trust them.

It is from that standpoint that we begin the process. Virtually all of the issues boil down to a simple mistake.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Yes, make it very small, like 8 pounds.

A 30 pound mechanism can consume several weeks of 16 hour days, well after bag day. Us mentors are already exhausted after 6 weeks - extending build season due to withholding allowance makes the process unbearable.

Mentor burnout is real, and a big w/h allowance exacerbates it.

Don- I agree mentor burnout is a very very legitimate concern for FIRST in general. However, I think a large reason you see teams continue to improve over a season is because of withholding allowance.

Some people view withholding allowance as 'unpure' for lack of a better word. In my opinion however, it is the essence of engineering and design. Teams may test and practice all year in their labs, but until they get out on the field and compete, they are not fully vetting their solutions. Withholding allowance allows for iteration and refinement which raises the level of play for just about every team playing

-Brando

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Don- I agree mentor burnout is a very very legitimate concern for FIRST in general. However, I think a large reason you see teams continue to improve over a season is because of withholding allowance.

Some people view withholding allowance as 'unpure' for lack of a better word. In my opinion however, it is the essence of engineering and design. Teams may test and practice all year in their labs, but until they get out on the field and compete, they are not fully vetting their solutions. Withholding allowance allows for iteration and refinement which raises the level of play for just about every team playing

-Brando

In my experience, it's not the withholding allowance that lets teams get better over the course of the season... it's run time. With the exception of this year (which was a fluke), my team has always done significantly better at our second regional. We've never really utilized the withholding allowance.

When the first regional starts, our drivers have very little practice. Programming has only had a few hours with the robot. Simply put, we have issues that we haven't had time to fix yet.

When the second regional starts, we've had three 8+ hour days of hard work testing, refining, and driving the robot in the previous regional. We also have practical experience knowing how the game will be played. We come out much more prepared, and as a result perform much better.

I'll add to that a note of something I observed this season. There was a team in Duluth that ended up seeding very well. When they came down to Minneapolis, they brought in a brand new 30lb shooter and spent the first day swapping it out on their machine. They didn't do as well in Minneapolis. They then went to Champs last week, used their withholding to bring in another new shooter, and spent some time modifying their bot. The first two iterations were tall, while the third was short enough to fit under the pyramid. From what I've heard, they issues the entire weekend. Iterating with your withholding allowance isn't always beneficial.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by CENTURION

I agree, I think if we want FIRST to keep the kind of awesome culture it does, we need to show teams that we trust them.

I've had to tell my students on a few occasions, "that's not our problem."

One was this year, where teams were clearly using secondary, non-approved, non-legal, non-robot-controlled compressors in their pits in order to charge their pneumatics. This happened at both regional competitions we attended, and it was, for lack of a better word, brazen.

The fact that these other teams cheated -- and yes, I'm going to use that word because those that I know about continued to use the compressors on the down-low even after being told by the LRI that it was illegal -- HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on what really matters about 1551, which is what I consider my definition of "Gracious Professionalism": integrity, work ethic, integrity, drive, integrity, motivation, integrity, skill, integrity, helpfulness, integrity, and integrity.

It's up to FIRST to take reasonable steps to stamp out instances of actual cheating when they occur, and some level of self-policing between teams is a reasonable way to help with this effort, but when it comes down to brass tacks I think we have two fundamentally different situations that often get conflated:

1. Teams that are violating rules without realizing that they have done so. Sometimes this can be rectified. In the case of a non-compliant robot bagging, even where there is work done on the robot after stop build, because no one that we know of has yet invented a time machine, there is no way to rectify that situation. As such, the team should be allowed to compete with a stern admonishment. The first time it happens.

2. Teams that know the rules and willfully violate them. This should come with severe sanction, IMO.

Unfortunately, #1 is oft confused for #2, and even when #2 occurs, there's often scant evidence of it -- or not enough to say that it definitely wasn't #1. I can imagine that barring a team from participating on flimsy evidence could result in, for example, lawsuits; there's a lot of money tied up in FIRST as an organization and in FIRST teams, and getting banned on flimsy evidence from a competition you paid to enter almost definitely sets the banning party up for some liability.

So erring on the side of the benefit of the doubt is, IMO, the right thing to do as well as the wise thing to do.

In the meantime, we continue to act with integrity ourselves, and expect it from those around us. It really does rub off on most people--and those it doesn't, we likely can't bring into the fold anyway.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

In my experience, it's not the withholding allowance that lets teams get better over the course of the season... it's run time. With the exception of this year (which was a fluke), my team has always done significantly better at our second regional. We've never really utilized the withholding allowance.

When the first regional starts, our drivers have very little practice. Programming has only had a few hours with the robot. Simply put, we have issues that we haven't had time to fix yet.

When the second regional starts, we've had three 8+ hour days of hard work testing, refining, and driving the robot in the previous regional. We also have practical experience knowing how the game will be played. We come out much more prepared, and as a result perform much better.

I'll add to that a note of something I observed this season. There was a team in Duluth that ended up seeding very well. When they came down to Minneapolis, they brought in a brand new 30lb shooter and spent the first day swapping it out on their machine. They didn't do as well in Minneapolis. They then went to Champs last week, used their withholding to bring in another new shooter, and spent some time modifying their bot. The first two iterations were tall, while the third was short enough to fit under the pyramid. From what I've heard, they issues the entire weekend. Iterating with your withholding allowance isn't always beneficial.

I agree Jon. I should've been more detailed in my reply. I don't think withholding allowance is the only reason teams improve. Obviously practice, and simply 'getting the bugs out' goes a very long way. I do believe that the withholding allowance allows teams to continue elevating their ceiling, which can be a good or bad thing in specific cases.

Your anecdote on the Duluth team is also a very good example of how withholding can hurt. Ive seen many cases just like that over the year (including with my own team). I've also seen many cases of a team making upgrades using withholding and elevating to an entirely new level. A good example this year comes to mind with 3467. They were a consistent 30 point climber at BAE, but saw a limitation to their ceiling early on in the season. They spent the 5 weeks between BAE and Pine Tree building a shooter system and remounting their climber to it. At Pine Tree the team was capable of an extremely consistent 18 point auto, 12-14 teleop discs and a ~17-20 second 30 point climb. This put their ceiling VERY high compared to a typical cycler or a typical 30 point climber.


So to summarize- I think there are teams who use withholding to their extreme benefit while there are others who fall short of their intended targets. Either way, I think its an important part of the development cycle for a robot in a particular season.

-Brando

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Don Wright

So...make the system more time consuming and complex for the >99% of the teams in FIRST that don't cheat?

I think that's well within the abilities of the people we trust to program robots. (Or the people we trust with word processors, for that matter.) Also, the security is for the benefit of the team, so that they can be sure any error on FIRST's part won't lead to inadvertent disclosure of their robot. If they don't care about that, I wouldn't be opposed to letting them submit picture files in unsecured fashion.

It's also cheap insurance against losing the paper form—these are forgotten in hotels and schools all the time, and lead to deviation procedures that involve the head ref, FTA and LRI. That's what really wastes time. This places a modest burden on teams, but does it well in advance so that everyone can make the most of the events.

Making the numbers public would be a little unusual for FIRST—because it rarely uses enforcement mechanisms that involve the community—but in this case, the burden is essentially zero, other than at load-in time. And it has the advantage of quelling the often baseless rumours that sometimes crop up. If you subscribe to the notion that a team is violating the bag rules, then walk past during load in, or forever hold your peace. Concurrently, teams have to justify themselves to each other, and this puts additional pressure on them to play fair.

The only significant added complexity lies with FIRST. If they don't have the IT resources to manage it properly, it could indeed become annoying.

Originally Posted by Don Wright

If we all believe that cheating is so widespread that we need to start making the process more complex and secure, then fundamentally, at the core of this program, we are losing.

Trust, but verify. We still make teams prepare a BOM, even though we expect them to comply, and can't realistically check them all in detail. It's trivial to forge one, but the procedure helps keep the competition's expectations foremost in team members' minds, and likely reduces opportunistic cheating. Similarly, knowing that there's an independent record outside of the team's control means that it's much riskier to change the robot in substantial ways.

Also, acting as an LRI, I've seen a few possible end-of-build violations over the years, each with moderate to strong evidence. Some involved extra practice and refinement, and some were possible duplications of another team's robot.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

In my mind, the withholding allowance is meant to give teams a chance to assemble spare mechanisms after stop build, a chance to program for specialty sensors and assemblies (e.g. camera aimed shooters) or simply to modify/improve an existing robot mechanism that proved unreliable during practice/testing. While a rarity in the past, teams who build a second robot or "prototype" are becoming common place. The level of design is a testament to this. We can have a long discussion on whether this improves the competition overall but this is not the place for that. I do not believe it is in the spirit of the rule to construct robot parts that were not built/designed/conceived prior to stop build. In other words, I do not believe it is in the spirit to build a drive base prior to stop build with the expectation you will build the rest of the robot later and bring it along as withholding. Yes, as an LRI I have seen 29 lb+ mechanisms come in the door.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

I do not believe it is in the spirit of the rule to construct robot parts that were not built/designed/conceived prior to stop build. In other words, I do not believe it is in the spirit to build a drive base prior to stop build with the expectation you will build the rest of the robot later and bring it along as withholding. Yes, as an LRI I have seen 29 lb+ mechanisms come in the door.

It would surprise me if even a sizable minority of FIRST members share your belief on that!