Materials not specifically allowed are now illegal?!?!

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by magnets

The problem is that the guy who is answering the questions isn't trying to help teams figure out their solutions. Teams asking questions want to understand what they're trying to do. The GDC answers with a totally ambiguous answer. I really hoped that after the robonauts in 2012, with IMO was one of the worst decisions they've ever made, that the question and answer would be a little better. Building robots isn't easy for a bunch of high schoolers on a rookie team. They don't need to get garbage as a response. This rule really doesn't make any sense at all, and can't really be enforced.

These rules this year are pretty poor. They can't be interpreted word for word, otherwise some interesting possibilities come up. I struggle to see how much the GDC really reads over the rules before the game. They're historically missed some big stuff. For instance, this year, they didn't think what would happen if a ball got stuck in a robot. It took about an hour for multiple people on our team to point this out as being possibly problematic. In 2013, they obviously never tested the throw all the white discs in the last 30 seconds part of the game, and in 2011, they didn't get the stored energy minibot. I keep hoping that there will be improvements, but it isn't happening.

There is a huge negative reputation given to people who try to "lawyer" the rules. I disagree completely. The responsibility of FIRST is to give us a set of rules that don't have any loopholes they don't want. A good engineer will analyze the game and figure out a way to get the most points while preventing the other team from getting as many points. If you're making something in the real world, and you come up with a clever solution (like 469 did in 2010) that solves the problem given to you, then your company will win the bid, and you'll get paid to make the part. FRC does a great job mimicking a real world customer in terms of ambiguity. The rules are the specification given to us. If there is a "shortcut", then it is part of the specification, and the solution is ok. If your robot meets the rules, but doesn't follow the intention of the rules (118's definition of grasp, vs. the GDC's undefined definition of grasp), and this is illegal, then you get into a very subjective grey area.

Q&A responses aren't totally garbage. The problem is, you're statement here implies that you are expecting responses from them that "give the answers" to problems teams are having. That's not the purpose of the Q&A. There are other avenues (yes, other than CD) for that. Sure, they could be a little better, but to say they are "absolute garbage" is unnecessarily offensive and critical.

The quality of the manual this year is, in my opinion, no different than any other year. You can't expect them to expect those certain holes in the game that you listed. Also, you're viewing the manual for a different lens than the GDC. When they read it, they know their intent for everything, and will interpret things how they interpret, knowing how they "want the game" to play out. And in regards to the 118 2012 situation, I'd like to believe that 118 knew they were taking a risk with that strategy, but the exact specifics of what the GDC told 118 are not public knowledge (to my opinion). In my opinion, it was a risk because I highly doubt the GDC designed the game with the intent for a 118-type balance to be doable.


And the reason there's a "huge negative reputation given to people who try to "lawyer" the rules" because of this statement at the beginning of Section 4 of the manual:

When reading these rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than “lawyering” the interpretation and splitting hairs over the precise wording in an attempt to find loopholes. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule.

emphasis mine.

[Tristan Lall]

Some might be interested in this previous discussion on how closely to read the bumper rules (from 2010). In that thread, I said:

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Now, returning to something that came up earlier: why are we enforcing provisions in the rules that are mostly useless? After all, not every rule is of equal importance or equal impact. The bumper rule, among several others, contains a number of specifications that are not especially important to gameplay, safety or other stated FIRST priorities. Teams are often understandably frustrated, for example, when confronted with a rule that makes an arbitrary but functionally immaterial distinction between parts. Inspectors can hardly take joy in having to tell a team that their careful engineering is for naught, because they used pneumatic tubing that was smaller than the only permissible size. And although you can blame the team for not reading the rule (which was plainly written in the manual), ultimately, it's a matter of having better rules, so that these issues don't come up in the first place. These are issues that the GDC needs to consider.

Another argument that comes up often in these sorts of discussions is that in real life, you can't possibly follow every law—so why is it necessary in FIRST? Well, FIRST isn't a perfect simulation of real life (nor is it realistically intended to be one, I don't think). In real life, nobody rewrites the body of law every year—but in FIRST, only this year's rules matter. In real life, precedent has a specific role in law—but in FIRST, precedents are not binding, infuriating as that might be when you pass inspection at one event and fail at the next. And most importantly, the laws of the real world deal with things of critical importance like liberties and rights—but in FIRST, the rules, and the procedures for applying and complying with the rules are drastically narrower in scope. Personally, while I might advocate for leniency in some areas of social policy (given the importance and consequences of those aspects of law), I tend to take a harder line within the limited scope of the FIRST rulebook.

While I still hold those opinions, particularly that the rules should generally be read as standalone specifications that do not depend on a knowledge of past practice, I think it's fair to revisit the question of precedent under the current circumstances. After all, it might be suggested that FIRST's ongoing intent has been to keep the bumpers mostly similar from year to year, and that the omission of staples was inadvertent and based on an unspoken presumption (on the part of the GDC) that teams could keep doing what they'd done previously, as long as it didn't contradict the GDC's updated intent. Another example of this is the definition of what constitutes an acceptable bumper fastening system: that definition has evolved over the years, but simply looking at the 2014 rulebook, it's not clear exactly what FIRST means or what it will accept. That kind of thought process would be an easy mistake to make, particularly if the GDC were concentrating on other, more important details.¹

If that's true, does it imply that a "proper" reading of the rules is only likely with specific knowledge of the past (e.g. that staples used to be specified as options for bumper construction, and are thus unlikely to arouse the concern of the officials or the GDC)? I hope not; firstly because there are relatively few people with that knowledge (or the inclination to amass such esoteric knowledge), and there's no need for them to be the gatekeepers to the rulebook; and secondly, because the downsides of codifying everything to a widely acceptable degree of precision are minimal when you have absolute control of the rule-writing process, so there's no need for half-measures that introduce widespread uncertainty.

Everyone's interests are served by simply clarifying the rule's intent (via Q&A), and if necessary, issuing updates that make that intent clearer and which can guide the teams and officials alike. The fact that this might reiterate past rulings is immaterial, and the fact that this might contradict past years' rulings—while not immaterial—at least shouldn't be reason for great consternation.


¹ And make no mistake, several of the most important ongoing deficiencies in the bumper rules have been corrected in the last couple of years. The bumper rules are still far from perfect, but they're not nearly as bad as they used to be.

[pfreivald]

Well said then, well said now, Tristan.

[wireties]

The analogy between the rules of the game and the rules that govern a society is not entirely apropos. I think FRC is purposefully designed to mimic a quick-turn engineering effort by a company of mixed talents and resources (energetic young engineers and older wiser engineers, ie students and mentors). It is intended to mimic "real life". We build web sites, project management is encouraged, many teams have corporate-ish structures, etcetera. So the rules are more like a contract which is a standalone-ish document. The contract may refer, for convenience, to external guidelines (the Federal Rules of Acquisition, safety practices and/or technical standards like RS-232 for example) but the contract stands alone. Precedence does not play a role. The terms of the last contract for the same product or with the same customer carry no particular weight. There is contract law of course but that generally classifies contracts and deals with disputes, methods of offerance and acceptance etc. Contract law would not typically cover differences in technical practices or ambiguity in requirements.

No contract is ever perfect - my experience is that many are pitiful. So try to methodically arrive at an agreement with the customer, FIRST in this case. Instead of "lawyering" terminology it is important to query the GDC and process the rules and the answers in a common sense manner. A few years ago I got in trouble with some young engineers on CD by suggesting (and in the end being way too snarky) that they not risk other people's money (sponsors) on what was, to me and other grey hairs, obviously a drawing with incomplete comments destined to be corrected. The GDC did correct the drawing.

A good outcome in the "real world" is where you deliver a clever conforming solution, make a profit and your customer is satisfied and inclined to return. A good outcome in FIRST is productive and enjoyable participation of the students and a clever robot that passes inspection and plays well. Good luck to all!