Teams that do not bag their robots

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[Thad House]

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.

I think a better rule would be to add something new with withholding, something has to be removed. At that point you could consider it an upgrade. Every team I have ever been a part of has always had to remove something in order to upgrade. We have never shipped a non functional robot. Everything we have ever brought in with withholding has been to improve functionality, not make it functional in the first place.

[Don Wright]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

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, ...

I didn't say teams didn't have the ability to do it... I just thinking adding additional processes to ALL teams just to try and stop/catch the VERY small amount of teams that I assume is cheating isn't moving in a positive direction. The teams that really, really, really want to cheat...will still find ways no matter what you try to do to stop it... So why add additional hoops for all of the teams to jump through because of the acts of these few teams?

I guess I don't share your view that more big brother (FIRST) is better than less...or would change anything.

Just for the record, I think we should get rid of the B&T and think that you then get rid of most of the "problems". Yes, teams now have to decide on their own how much or long they will work on the robot (and not have "mentor burnout")...but it's now in their control. Everyone does this anyway...teams that want a second robot and want to continue to improve through the season do it already.

IRT the BOM...this is already a funny area... When teams can have complete CNC'd custom gearboxes, wheels, parts, etc. from sponsors at the cost of the raw materials (which also for the record I have NO problem with and love this aspect of the competition...teams like 254 and 233 are huge inspirations to everyone), the BOM rule is sort of a formality already. It is mostly just another number to quantify another part of the competition that is similar to real world (typical design constraints are size, weight, time, and cost).