FRC Blog - My Bad Call

[Jon Stratis]

Is there a post somewhere detailing what happened in Orlando? This is the first I've heard about it, searching isn't turning up anything useful, and I'm curious...

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Is there a post somewhere detailing what happened in Orlando? This is the first I've heard about it, searching isn't turning up anything useful, and I'm curious...

If you go to Youtube and look up the Orlando Regional, both 233 and 179 were interviewed by TheRoboShow about the incident.

[S.P.A.M.er 17]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

The robot's competed illegally and were, rightfully, red carded.

That is what was announced at Orlando. However it is not fair to the teams involved. They made it sound completely intentional, which would mean that 233, 624, and 1902 were purposely trying to gain an advantage illegally to win the competition. Not acknowledging there may have been a mix-up, implies that was exactly what those teams were trying to do. It also means that all the statements the teams gave after the fact were not true, and further casts shadows on three very reputable teams.

I was contacted by the field at the Silicon Valley Regional about Team 1323, MadTown Robotics, regarding a backup coupon they had turned in during the Semi Finals. My understanding at the time was that 1323 had called for a backup team for themselves, but had repaired their robot later and still wanted to participate in the match. I told the field this should not be allowed, as requesting a backup team, like requesting a timeout, is a strategic decision that a team must make, and there is no provision in the rules for allowing a team to change their minds later based on how potential repairs are progressing or for any other reason.

At the time, Frank believed that a team was purposely trying to game the system to gain an advantage. What makes 1323 saying that they weren't doing this any different than 233, 624, and 1902 saying they weren't doing this? (I wholly believe 1323 was NOT doing this, I just want to make the comparison). The Orlando teams deserve more than what was just announced at the competition. It isn't about the trip to championship, but the implications that could be made without comment from FIRST.

[coalhot]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

IF (and this is a huge if) the LRI knocked out that alliance intentionally there's a big issue. But it's not one that a couple wild card spots will sort out.

I don't recall anyone in the Orlando thread mentioning that it was the LRI who let Bacon (or was in on any discussions to) put the spare batteries on the robot. All the threads pointed to a RI saying it was OK and presiding over the reinspection. Having volunteered as a RI and FTAA these past two years, I would probably have asked the LRI first on a ruling of legality, and then asked for the LRI to inform the field personnel of the ruling, so there wouldn't be any miscommunication issues. However, there may be sides of the story I haven't read, so I won't pass judgement on the Orlando situation.

+1 for Frank. Nice to see that HQ takes issues like the SVR one seriously, and fixes them quickly.

[Jared Russell]

Thanks to Frank for explaining the situation and trying to make it right. Mistakes happen to everyone, and it is how we deal with them that shows our true character. We can all learn a lot about how to deal with a bad situation from the actions of 1323 and Frank these past couple of days.

It stinks for other teams that, for one reason or another, also had their seasons prematurely shortened. I am not in a position to say that these teams are any less deserving of a spot at the Championships, but I am just glad that in this case FIRST got it right.

[jvriezen]

Several are wondering why Frank/FIRST have not addressed other seemingly similar situations publicly as has been done here.

While I have no specific 'inside' information regarding any of the situations, lets give Frank/FIRST/HQ the benefit of the doubt here. It is clear that when the situation lends itself, a public explanation such as today's is given and the resolution is a good one. It could be that circumstances around other situations are such that a public 'airing' of the situation and its resolution is not in the best interest when all affected parties are considered. That doesn't mean that a best case resolution hasn't been made in ways that are not made public. FIRST has had more transparency in recent times, but that does not mean they can always be fully transparent on all matters.

The directly affected parties for such issues deserve to have their concerns considered and typically will communicate directly with FIRST. The rest of the FIRST community is not entitled to have all matters and their resolutions explained to them as doing so may compromise some confidential information or have other undesirable effects. In some cases, parties are asked not to discuss resolutions with others as part of the resolution. This is the way it works in the real world, folks. Again, I am in no way saying that anything like this HAS happened in any situation (I have no clue), just saying that hearing nothing doesn't always mean you can assume nothing has happened. If you are not a directly effected party, assume that you do not have all the facts and your conclusions are suspect. This was the case for some CD posters concerning the SVR issue, prior to Frank's blog post.

Thank you Frank for all you do for FRC.

[sbrierty]

Since there seems to be some lingering confusion on the Orlando situation I'm posting the link to the thread that has posts from 1902, 624, and 233.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...127083&page=12

Judge for yourselves how similar or not the situation is compared with SVR. It seems in both situations Frank was asked to make a decision with incomplete or incorrect information.

**EDIT** 233 is the only alliance member left who does not currently have a spot at Championship. (They were also the alliance captain of that #1 seed)

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by TikiTech

I do not think the waitlist is much of an option this year..per Frank

While that may be, at the very minimum, it was a waitlist of 1, correct? 1323 did not qualify through normal means, nor were they on the CMP waitlist, as they competed there last year. For them to attend, presuming the same total number of CMP teams, a traditional waitlist team that would have otherwise been given the opportunity to attend the CMP will be required to stay home.

I am not asking for the Wild Card to be removed. I just want people to understand that this tough decision did not come without consequences.

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

This isn't a new thing though.

All the way back in 2008 the entire finalists alliance at SVR were given Champs spots.

Ouch...SVR double whammy.

The Championship still offered an open enrollment phase back then, so perhaps the "stakes" weren't as high.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

While I agree with the latter paragraph, I have to take some exception to the former; policies that remove adjudication (that is, judgment) lead to ridiculous things like second graders getting suspended for chewing their Pop Tarts to look like pistols.

"Zero-tolerance" polices are zero-thought policies specifically because they strip the adjudicating body of the ability to apply judgment and reason to the situation, and that makes them bad policy.

So yes, HQ should do everything they can to minimize all situations wherein such calls have to be made in the first place, but when those transgressions occur, the use of judgment to arrive at the most desirable (or least undesirable) outcome is not a slippery slope, it's necessary for sane and reasonable policy.

My point remains that there are many, many more similar "Pop Tart gun" scenarios that have occurred this season than just this one instance, yet this was the only one HQ decided (for now) to address in this manner. Many more scenarios than the *other* notably public situation in Orlando. Ones you'll never hear about. Ones that no doubt contributed to qualifying match losses, elimination match losses, entry into the elimination rounds, lost alliance captaincy positions, and the like. It's ok for HQ to address the one that "went the most viral", as long as they admit to and do not lose sight of the greater problems at hand, those they've yet to publicly address in the same manner Frank did today.

Originally Posted by Thad House

What I'm more excited about is that ever since Frank took over FRC director, things have become much more open to the community, and instead off all of us just sitting in the dark, we get answers and how they are going to fix things. I suspect that they want to say some things about how this year is going, but I think they are waiting until after competition season is over in order to acknowledge them.

The majority of people concerned/affected by the problems of the Aerial Assist season are still sitting in the dark, in possession of many questions but receiving few, if any answers. They are currently unaware whether Frank and HQ are planning to openly address their concerns. I think a public statement would be both warranted and therapeutic for all concerned.

I caution everyone to not so easily underestimate the collective emotional pressure boiling underneath the surface of this season. If HQ doesn't take suitable steps to see that it is properly relieved, and similar mistakes are made again in subsequent seasons, don't be surprised to see the endgame erupt into something that no one - teams, volunteers, and HQ - wants to see.

I think all people are asking for is a public acknowledgment from HQ along the lines of "We made mistakes in developing and deploying significant game management aspects of the Aerial Assist season, and we fully own them. The responsibility for correcting them is ours. We apologize for the added stress this season has brought to teams and volunteers, and we assure you that we will do everything in our power this offseason to improve our internal quality control measures such that the competitive experience will be better for all involved."

I honestly, truly, do not think that is too much to ask. It would go very far in alleviating the pressure I mentioned above.

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

I think all people are asking for is a public acknowledgment from HQ along the lines of "We made mistakes in developing and deploying significant game management aspects of the Aerial Assist season, and we fully own them. The responsibility for correcting them is ours. We apologize for the added stress this season has brought to teams and volunteers, and we assure you that we will do everything in our power this offseason to improve our internal quality control measures such that the competitive experience will be better for all involved."

I honestly, truly, do not think that is too much to ask. It would go very far in alleviating the pressure I mentioned above.

I think, to some extent that was already done. From Frank's blog: "We’d love for every game to achieve Ultimate Ascent-like popularity, and we did not reach that level this year. Aerial Assist was a very different game for FRC, with our attempt to have a more sports-like game and strongly encourage teamwork on alliances. Some aspects of the game are working well and some, such as the burden placed on our volunteer referees, are not. Your feedback is critically important as we work to incorporate the lessons learned from this game to improve our future game design efforts."

Are you expecting a public statement after each week of competition for the major transgressions that occurred and/or 'went viral'? Consider a rookie team that is exposed to one event, doesn't follow CD, but then sees public apology statements through the blog (or an email blast) each week. Without a lot of context, they might think "what kind of organization have we gotten into?" If there is to be another public acknowledgement of troubles and intent to address them (and there very well might be), I'd expect it to come after the season is over, not before. It has already been acknowledged in a blog post that things are not as they had hoped and that they intend to work to incorporate lessons learned for future game design.

[rsisk]

There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

5.5.3 Referee Interaction
The Head Referee has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event, but may receive input from additional sources, e.g. Game Designers, FIRST personnel, and technical staff. The Head Referee rulings are final. The Head Referee will not review recorded replays under any circumstances.

T13
If a TEAM needs clarification on a ruling or score, one (1) pre-college student from that TEAM should address the Head Referee after the ARENA reset signal (i.e. PLAYER STATION LED strings turn green). A TEAM member signals their desire to speak with the Head Referee by standing in a Red or Blue Question Box, which are located on the floor near each end of the scoring table. Depending on timing, the Head Referee may postpone any requested discussion until the end of the subsequent MATCH.

[Boe]

Originally Posted by rsisk

There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

I wondered the same thing, as to why frank was the one making the call. I also wondered if the head ref at svr would have been able to overrule what frank if he didnt agree with frank since the ref has ultimate authority in the arena.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by rsisk

There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

I believe it is because the FTA is the one who contacts FIRST and their interface is Frank.

[Libby K]

I am so, so proud of Frank for this post.

Yes, the wrong call was made, and he apologized for it and explained how he was going to fix it. Frank's really good at this transparency thing we're all begging for.

However, it doesn't fix the issue that anyone thought it was at any point okay to penalize a team for an honest mistake, nor does it excuse the alleged statement made re: 'pulling the team out of championships'. Things need to change somewhere in the chain of command to avoid the overpowered-entitled-volunteer behavior that's become unfortunately all too common in the FIRST community.

A big step in the right direction. All in all, the right thing to do for now. Good Guy Frank strikes again!

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

What am I going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks now?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PayneTrain again

Drat!


.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Considering how everyone has the hair trigger sensitivity of Nitro Glycerin and what's at stake this week and down in St. Louis you can bet you'll get good use out of them pretty soon.

Buy low, sell high! I like it.