|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
Quote:
Followed by T6 Quote:
Team 1337 passes inspection weighing 100lbs. Team 1337 plays Match1 Team 1337 decides they need to ballast their bot, they add 15lbs of ballast. Would anyone object to saying that 1337 needs to be re-inspected? If not, we can safely say that their first inspection no longer counts and they HAVEN'T passed inspection. Obviously, Match1 is legal but any matches until they get reinspected they are playing with an uninspected robot. Why is this important? What if instead of adding 15lbs of steel ballast they added 25lbs of steel ballast? Or changed some wiring to be a smaller gauge and now it is a potential fire risk? |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
I'm pushing hard to get this implemented out here in SoCal for inspectors. Same system also supported judges in much the same way. I used it as Match Observer at Chestnut Hill and loved the ability to get up and roam while observing matches. And now back to the original topic of the thread.... GMS would be perfect for doing reinspections in the queue line, on the field, in the pit and having a record of the reinspection. |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
I don't know if the paperwork has to be that extreme. I could see a few lines at the bottom of the Inspection Checklist - Reinspection Date / Time, Changes Made, Inspector Signature. Just have 4 sets of those 3 fields at the bottom of forms to know a robot has been reinspected. The Changes Made field will clear up issues like these where it wasn't obvious to some if the change was included in a particular reinspection.
I'd like to commend Frank for continuing to comment on these difficult circumstances, even when he can't give news that satisfies everyone. His maturity and gracious professionalism continue to inspire. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
A judge showed me the judges portion of the app. This section seemed like it needed the most work, but it did show promise. They had everyone fill out surveys after the event and asked for feedback. Overall, it made everyone's lives easier and saved a bunch of trees. In the case of inspectors, it has the full inspection checklist and the inspector simply scrolls down it and answers yes/no or checks off various things. Teams start showing up with a red backround which is shown in the pit map, match schedule, pretty much everywhere. When they're fully inspected they turn green. Queuers were told if a team showed up to queue with anything but a green background to grab an inspector. There were some other colors as well, such as yellow and pink. I'm not entirely sure what the significance of those were, but I'm sure someone that was an inspector could answer. Last edited by Brandon_L : 16-04-2014 at 12:59. |
|
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Attached is the form used at South Florida to track robot changes and reinspections.
Hopefully this ends any of the nonsense talk about willful malfeasance. These are all three Chairman's Award teams that we all should be emulating. They are among the nicest, kindest, and fun people you'll get to meet in FIRST. Bacon and CRyptonite: Best of luck in St. Louis! Pink: Champs won't be the same without you guys. But we'll try to represent Florida proudly, as you all have done the last 16 years. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
To be completely honest I think the way FIRST (and Frank) handled this problem is unbelievable.
First of all, the "reinspection process" is NOT well-defined in the manual and as such a team has no way of knowing the magnitude of change that requires reinspection (do we need to get an inspector every time we change tread on the wheels?). Team's should not be made to suffer for FIRST's inability and refusal to define many rules properly. A team would have to be obviously and purposefully cheating before I would advocate a ruling like this. Second of all, the media got involved. Every one of us here in the 21st century should know the kind of damage that the media can do to an organization/individual's reputation. We should also be aware that a ruined reputation for a robotics team will interfere with it's ability to gain and retain sponsors as well as their ability to inspire further generations to become involved with STEM (which, may I remind you, is FIRST's entire mission). I think that the way FIRST handled the repercussions of this decision were very inadequate. FIRST needs to write a press release to defend the reputation of these teams as well as writing each of their sponsors to explain the situation. It is FIRST's responsibility to make sure that the damage to a few teams' reputation doesn't cause these teams permanent harm as well a to prevent the bad reputation to spread to other teams and the organization as a whole. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
|
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
I don't think us as outside observers can really adequately judge how local team reputation is affected by local media. Of course you hadn't heard of it, you live in Boston. All it takes is one misunderstood Google search and perhaps a sponsor would look elsewhere for a team to support.
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
EDIT: I was typing this as Chris made his post. Exactly my point. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
|
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
Apparently Florida Today follows the Pink Team on occasion. They've done a good job of reaching out to the media - back in 2007 when I was on the team, the only reporter we could get to talk to us was a freelance writer who was related to one of our members. Some quick Google searches didn't show anything else that mentioned the incident on the first page, so I don't think that this will be a permanent stain for any of the teams. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
Hmm, I don't like a call a ref made, I'ma go whine to my local paper. Do you honestly believe I couldn't spin the facts in a way that could get a sympathetic story in some paper? Every reporter loves a story of a big group negatively impacting children. That sells papers. So, now does FIRST have to address this issue? No. Besides, did FIRST do anything when people on here attack other teams and accuse them of cheating? Or when students are being harassed? Or heck, when volunteers are being harassed? No. They haven't. They've left us out on our own in the past, I don't see why that would change now. |
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
Quote:
And yes, reinspections should include replacing tread on wheels - that is the main part of the robot that interacts with the carpet, and inspectors need to be able to verify that the alteration does not risk significant damage to the carpet. Specifically, if you're attaching it with a pop-rivets, as many teams do, I need to be able to see that the new pop-rivets were installed properly and won't cause an issue. The same could be said of zip ties (where is the head of the zip tie located?) or gluing (are any exposed rims of the wheels properly accounted for? Is the glue dry so it would get all over the field?) or any other attachment method you can think of. These reinspections are not cursory, they are not lighter or less rigorous than the initial inspection. The only difference is the scope - we don't have to worry about the entire robot any more, just the small area where the change was made. |
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
Quote:
Removing a mechanism present during the original inspection does not trigger a need for re inspection per T8. Adding the ballast to compensate would require reinspection. As a side note reinstalling the mechanism if the ballast + mechanism exceeded the allowed robot weight would probably be against the rules. Last edited by FrankJ : 17-04-2014 at 11:30. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Orlando Incident
I missed it? What exactly was the issue with the one robot? Were they out of compliance with robot construction rules, or overweight or something?
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|