Something FRC GDC could learn from VRC GDC

[scca229]

Originally Posted by bduddy

"Common sense" should very rarely have to come into play when reading a rulebook.

Would you rather the rule book turn into one used for most motor sports and state something like:

If the rules do not explicitly say that you CAN do something, then you CANNOT.

As a participant in several different motor sports disciplines over the years, I know that I wouldn't as that would pretty much turn FRC into a spec-bot competition and you might as well not have a build season. The KOP would be the entire bot, build using the step-by-step instructions. The team with the best driver wins, assuming it isn't fully autonomous at that point. Not to mention the thread count on CD was grow exponentially due to the complaining...

I don't think it is hard at all to just follow the guidelines in the rule book with some common sense and stop trying to look for little holes to exploit. The referee penalty list is a great example of the "feature creep" that happens in a white list rule book.

I think the biggest problem is that way too many teams have engineers and mentors doing most of the actual build to the point where during inspections, the kids kepp turning to the adults present because the kids didn't have a clue as to what the functions were of the various systems when asked by the inspector (me for one event this year). I personally think only students should be allowed in the inspection area just like the question box, but that is for another post.

[EricH]

One of my favorite rules in an engineering competition (this one courtesy of SAE Aero Design) is something to the effect of: "Violations of the spirit of a rule are counted as violations of the rule."

In FRC, it is occasionally possible to have a play, strategy, or design that is within the letter of the rules, but not the spirit of the rules. Be interesting to see what would happen if the above were put in play in FRC...

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by EricH

One of my favorite rules in an engineering competition (this one courtesy of SAE Aero Design) is something to the effect of: "Violations of the spirit of a rule are counted as violations of the rule."

In FRC, it is occasionally possible to have a play, strategy, or design that is within the letter of the rules, but not the spirit of the rules. Be interesting to see what would happen if the above were put in play in FRC...

One persons innovative approach is another persons 'violation of the spirit of the rule'.

Sorry, I prefer my rules to be explicit, and not interpreted.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

One persons innovative approach is another persons 'violation of the spirit of the rule'.

Sorry, I prefer my rules to be explicit, and not interpreted.

To be fair, the rules were pretty clear (another thing certain folks need to work on), and if there was a question of intent/spirit, you asked the rules committee directly (and knew who they were!) and publicly, and got the same type of response back, usually within a day or so unless it was a particularly complicated one or you were being difficult. None of this "We cannot perform design reviews" non-answer (or "See the definition of possession"--which is what I just asked about!).

[DampRobot]

Originally Posted by EricH

To be fair, the rules were pretty clear (another thing certain folks need to work on), and if there was a question of intent/spirit, you asked the rules committee directly (and knew who they were!) and publicly, and got the same type of response back, usually within a day or so unless it was a particularly complicated one or you were being difficult. None of this "We cannot perform design reviews" non-answer (or "See the definition of possession"--which is what I just asked about!).

I really don't understand why the GDC still does this... It's ridiculous for a strategy/design you put a ton of work into to be ruled illegal at your first competition because no one bothered to clarify what the rule actually meant. And why the heck can't they say if a design as described is illegal or not? If someone's bothering to ask, it's probably because the rules aren't clear.

I get that FIRST doesn't want to answer questions in the Q and A that could be answered by just reading the manual (like we do on CD), but why not actually clarify what's said in the manual, rather than referring us to what we had a question about?

[apalrd]

Originally Posted by EricH

To be fair, the rules were pretty clear (another thing certain folks need to work on), and if there was a question of intent/spirit, you asked the rules committee directly (and knew who they were!) and publicly, and got the same type of response back, usually within a day or so unless it was a particularly complicated one or you were being difficult. None of this "We cannot perform design reviews" non-answer (or "See the definition of possession"--which is what I just asked about!).

I am not familiar with the SAE Aero series, but in Formula SAE, it is required for teams to submit a detailed analysis of their chassis design for safety and rules compliance review months before the competition. When the team arrives at competition, they just need to show the inspectors their approved SES and the inspectors only have to verify that the chassis is built to the SES for the team to pass the chassis safety section of the rules, and the team knows months ahead of time that their design will pass inspection (if they build it correctly). We are also encouraged to submit designs (including CAD images) when asking rules questions, when relevant, as we frequently have questions regarding the legality of a questionable design and it's just easier to directly ask if the design is legal and note which rules we are concerned with.

[mrnoble]

Originally Posted by scca229

I think the biggest problem is that way too many teams have engineers and mentors doing most of the actual build to the point where during inspections, the kids kepp turning to the adults present because the kids didn't have a clue as to what the functions were of the various systems when asked by the inspector (me for one event this year). I personally think only students should be allowed in the inspection area just like the question box, but that is for another post.

That is a mighty big assumption. Many of my students specialize. Some adults (judges, if I recall) came by our pit in Denver and started asking students about the design. As it happened, the students manning the pit at that moment were our head cheerleader and two who designed our website. They had no idea what to say about the robot. Our mech students don't program, and our CAD students don't usually build. Et cetera. I'm willing to bet that this is pretty common among teams with more than 10 kids on them.

[scca229]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

That is a mighty big assumption. Many of my students specialize. Some adults (judges, if I recall) came by our pit in Denver and started asking students about the design. As it happened, the students manning the pit at that moment were our head cheerleader and two who designed our website. They had no idea what to say about the robot. Our mech students don't program, and our CAD students don't usually build. Et cetera. I'm willing to bet that this is pretty common among teams with more than 10 kids on them.

I cannot speak for when the judges come around as we all know that is random and always seems to happen at the worst possible times. I can only speak for myself regarding my event as an inspector. Wouldn't you expect the student team members that accompany the robot to inspection to be ones that would be able to explain when asked about something on the robot? Based on your reply, maybe I'm expecting too much organization from most teams although it sounds like organization is a baseline for yours.

[beckyc4841]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

That is a mighty big assumption. Many of my students specialize. Some adults (judges, if I recall) came by our pit in Denver and started asking students about the design. As it happened, the students manning the pit at that moment were our head cheerleader and two who designed our website. They had no idea what to say about the robot. Our mech students don't program, and our CAD students don't usually build. Et cetera. I'm willing to bet that this is pretty common among teams with more than 10 kids on them.

I think the best way to avoid this is keeping the students that have not worked on the robot and may not know as much in the stands doing other thing ex: scouting or cheering. I know for us we only had kids in the pit and with the robot that worked on and knew more about the robot. We have a team of close to 15 and only about 5 or 6 were in the pit.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by mrnoble

That is a mighty big assumption. Many of my students specialize. Some adults (judges, if I recall) came by our pit in Denver and started asking students about the design. As it happened, the students manning the pit at that moment were our head cheerleader and two who designed our website. They had no idea what to say about the robot. Our mech students don't program, and our CAD students don't usually build. Et cetera. I'm willing to bet that this is pretty common among teams with more than 10 kids on them.

I'd like to think that, regardless of whether your team members are pit crew, web team, or "cheerleaders" (really?), they should have at least a general knowledge of the robot. Obviously no one can know everyone about the robot, but I'm sure the judges wouldn't expect your web team to, say, describe exactly how you wired your electronics board.

[mrnoble]

We really do have a head cheerleader, as well as a number of other students whose exposure to to the actual robot and it's functions is limited, and who choose to do only financial, decorative, costuming, videography, etc. Anything can be used as a "hook" to give students buy-in and access to a great program like FRC, and it's fun to watch them experience the competition from angles (such as the pit) where they might have limited prior knowledge. Hopefully next year, they will come back with interest in the deeper parts of robotics.

It may be fair to expect that the students accompanying the robot to inspection be able to answer technical questions. And it is fair to say that some teams have mentor-built robots (which,as we all know, is allowed and is a source of perpetual contention in FRC). I just don't think that mentor-built is the norm or the majority, and I also think that my anecdotal experience of having less knowledgable students floating around our inspections (which were 80% done in our pit this year) tells me that "mentor built" is not the only reason why a student can't answer questions about the robot.

[cbale2000]

Honestly, when it comes to inspections, I don't think it should matter who is talking to the inspector. The goal of inspections should be to get the robot checked for rule compliance as quickly and as accurately as possible. Leave student-only quiz time for the judges.

[/2 cents]

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by scca229

I think the biggest problem is that way too many teams have engineers and mentors doing most of the actual build to the point where during inspections, the kids kepp turning to the adults present because the kids didn't have a clue as to what the functions were of the various systems when asked by the inspector (me for one event this year). I personally think only students should be allowed in the inspection area just like the question box, but that is for another post.

Big Al taught me to start an inspection by asking for the various systems' student leads and asking everyone else - especially adults - to leave the pit. If you don't want to talk to the adults, don't. I suspect you'll be pleasantly surprised. In 5 years of inspecting I can only recall 2 inspections that turned into me talking significantly to adults.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Jaxom

Big Al taught me to start an inspection by asking for the various systems' student leads and asking everyone else - especially adults - to leave the pit. If you don't want to talk to the adults, don't. I suspect you'll be pleasantly surprised. In 5 years of inspecting I can only recall 2 inspections that turned into me talking significantly to adults.

I like the idea here... and I know what you are getting at. I agree that most of the discussion should be with students, but to ask the adults to leave the pit area is like saying to them "You aren't part of the team. This isn't your robot. Go away."

I know you don't mean it like that... but the adults are part of the team. They've got a little bit of their heart in that robot, too. More importantly, however, the adults are the team's brain trust and memory banks. Students graduate and move on... you're lucky to get three years of useful FRC experience from a student, and never more than five. The teachers and mentors, however, can stick around for a long time. If you can educate them about the inspection process, then they can educate their team members in future years.

Work with the students. Talk to the students. Don't let adults dominate the conversation, and keep the number of people in the pit down to a safe, managable level. But please include the teachers and mentors as part of the inspection process, particularly with newer teams. The adults, as much as anyone, need to know what is going on, what you are looking for, and why you are looking for it. After all, if it weren't for those adults that you suggest kicking out of the pit, there wouldn't be any kids or robot in the pit, either.

Jason

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by scca229

Not to mention the thread count on CD was grow exponentially due to the complaining...

It would grow for a while...then drop precipitously as teams quit.

Originally Posted by EricH

One of my favorite rules in an engineering competition (this one courtesy of SAE Aero Design) is something to the effect of: "Violations of the spirit of a rule are counted as violations of the rule."

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Both VRC and FRC do an excellent job of writing rules and replying to questions. Unfortunately neither of them defines whose version of common sense or interpretation of the spirit of the rules is to be applied.

Unless the spirit of the rule is clearly articulated and minimally ambiguous, and unless common sense is demonstrably the best interpretation available under the circumstances, then I'm firmly with Jason on this one.

Originally Posted by scca229

I think the biggest problem is that way too many teams have engineers and mentors doing most of the actual build to the point where during inspections, the kids kepp turning to the adults present because the kids didn't have a clue as to what the functions were of the various systems when asked by the inspector (me for one event this year). I personally think only students should be allowed in the inspection area just like the question box, but that is for another post.

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I like the idea here... and I know what you are getting at. I agree that most of the discussion should be with students, but to ask the adults to leave the pit area is like saying to them "You aren't part of the team. This isn't your robot. Go away."

I know you don't mean it like that... but the adults are part of the team. They've got a little bit of their heart in that robot, too. More importantly, however, the adults are the team's brain trust and memory banks. Students graduate and move on... you're lucky to get three years of useful FRC experience from a student, and never more than five. The teachers and mentors, however, can stick around for a long time. If you can educate them about the inspection process, then they can educate their team members in future years.

Work with the students. Talk to the students. Don't let adults dominate the conversation, and keep the number of people in the pit down to a safe, managable level. But please include the teachers and mentors as part of the inspection process, particularly with newer teams. The adults, as much as anyone, need to know what is going on, what you are looking for, and why you are looking for it. After all, if it weren't for those adults that you suggest kicking out of the pit, there wouldn't be any kids or robot in the pit, either.

Once again, I agree with Jason. My inspection conversations are mainly with the students, but there are certainly occasions where speaking with the mentors appears to serve the greater good. Conversely, if the mentors appear to be driving the inspection in a direction that is counterproductive, the inspector has plenty of opportunity to employ tactics that drive the conversation back in the desired direction—for example positioning oneself conveniently and asking direct questions.

To the extent that a robot inspector is investigating possible wrongdoing, sometimes it's also appropriate to inquire in a manner that delays hearing from the people with prepared answers. (You'll get their side soon enough, but it's useful to hear multiple versions of a suspicious story to help establish veracity.)