[FRC Blog] Software Downloads and Administrative Manual Release

[AustinShalit]

Something notable not in the blog post is section 4.9.2:

4.9.2 Pit Manners/Rules during the Ceremonies
■ No more than five members in an individual pit
■ Team members will not be allowed to use power tools, hammers, or other noisy tools during the ceremonies
■ All persons in the Pit should observe the code of behavior for the presentation of all national anthems:
• Maintain a respectful silence;
• Stand, facing the flag. If there is no flag, look toward the video screen showing a flag; and • Hats off please.

Is this a step in the right direction?

[wilsonmw04]

Wow, I mean wow! I have been saying for years that FRC needs to provide MORE feedback to the teams regarding how they are doing. Now they are taking away the only real feedback that any team gets?? This is beyond silly. FIRST, please read this and make the feedback form better. Don't remove feedback from the system. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE change this before week 1 events.

[MrTechCenter]

I'm also disappointed that they're getting rid of the feedback forms. While I never actually got my Dean's List feedback....I really liked seeing the Chairman's feedback, after collecting a few year's worth, you can easily see that the team has improved each year and it's really useful in figuring out what your team is doing right and what you need to work on. I'll admit, the feedback isn't always the most helpful, but taking it away entirely is not the answer.

[Conor Ryan]

Section 4.2.2. + Reading Between the Lines =
A M E N !

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

Wow, I mean wow! I have been saying for years that FRC needs to provide MORE feedback to the teams regarding how they are doing. Now they are taking away the only real feedback that any team gets?? This is beyond silly. FIRST, please read this and make the feedback form better. Don't remove feedback from the system. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE change this before week 1 events.

I tend to agree. I'm also going to say something here that's perhaps a bit controversial. It's about time that teams are required to release their Chairman's information when they win. There have been a couple times where I've been privy to team chairman information that you immediately know isn't true - things like teams suggesting they started teams that they really didn't, organized events that they merely participated in, etc. Public scrutiny of winning chairman entries will hopefully help naturally moderate some of the 'inflation' that goes on when entries are 'secret'. That's long overdue. It's also a great stepping stone so other teams know just how much more they can do in their community, and you never know when it might spur someone to inspiration and a great idea.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I tend to agree. I'm also going to say something here that's perhaps a bit controversial. It's about time that teams are required to release their Chairman's information when they win. There have been a couple times where I've been privy to team chairman information that you immediately know isn't true - things like teams suggesting they started teams that they really didn't, organized events that they merely participated in, etc. Public scrutiny of winning chairman entries will hopefully help naturally moderate some of the 'inflation' that goes on when entries are 'secret'. That's long overdue. It's also a great stepping stone so other teams know just how much more they can do in their community, and you never know when it might spur someone to inspiration and a great idea.

On that note, I think the "release interview videos" is definitely a good step in the right direction.

All I can really say about the lack of feedback is that I am incredibly disappointed. Teams deserve better.

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

I tend to agree. I'm also going to say something here that's perhaps a bit controversial. It's about time that teams are required to release their Chairman's information when they win. There have been a couple times where I've been privy to team chairman information that you immediately know isn't true - things like teams suggesting they started teams that they really didn't, organized events that they merely participated in, etc. Public scrutiny of winning chairman entries will hopefully help naturally moderate some of the 'inflation' that goes on when entries are 'secret'. That's long overdue. It's also a great stepping stone so other teams know just how much more they can do in their community, and you never know when it might spur someone to inspiration and a great idea.

I fully agree with you here. While I haven't seen anything quite on the level of what you're describing here, I've seen essays that perhaps stretch the truth a little. As someone who does most of the writing for my team, it's often hard to tell where the line lies between making something sound good and embellishing it to the point where it's not true, so hopefully this will encourage teams to really think about what they're writing before submitting it.

I'm not assuming malicious intent on the part of any Chairman's-submitting teams. I'm saying that it's often difficult to see where the line between 'sounds awesome' and 'exaggerated beyond the truth' lies when you want to sound as good as possible to the judges.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by AustinShalit

Something notable not in the blog post is section 4.9.2:

Only thing new there is the 5 person limit.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

Only thing new there is the 5 person limit.

More importantly, they explicitly state that more than zero people can officially be in the pit. Long overdue.

[Michael Hill]

Is it just me or can you not zoom in on the iOS app for the manual? If not, that's terrible.

[scca229]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

More importantly, they explicitly state that more than zero people can officially be in the pit. Long overdue.

Actually it says no more than 5, does not say requires allowing more than zero. As long as the Region is allowed to override anybody bringing the rule book over to attempt to argue a Region rule, I'm good to go with it. Respect is the key.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by scca229

As long as the Region is allowed to override anybody bringing the rule book over to attempt to argue a Region rule, I'm good to go with it.

If a regional is making its own rules, that run counter to the FRC rules ("world" rules), then that is an issue, and someone bringing the rulebook over to state that "This is allowed by 'world' rules" had better be given a good explanation--for example, an unpublicized written rule from the venue saying that such and such is not allowed.

If the regional does not have a good reason, then allowing them to override "world" rules is a very bad idea. But if they do have a good reason, then that's a whole 'nother matter.

[scca229]

Originally Posted by EricH

If a regional is making its own rules, that run counter to the FRC rules ("world" rules), then that is an issue, and someone bringing the rulebook over to state that "This is allowed by 'world' rules" had better be given a good explanation--for example, an unpublicized written rule from the venue saying that such and such is not allowed.

If the regional does not have a good reason, then allowing them to override "world" rules is a very bad idea. But if they do have a good reason, then that's a whole 'nother matter.

I see nothing against that rule in the book for a Region to say no one in the pits during ceremonies. Zero is no more than 5.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by scca229

I see nothing against that rule in the book for a Region to say no one in the pits during ceremonies. Zero is no more than 5.

Can you please show us where FIRST states that Regional Competitions have the authority to create their own rules?

[Bryan Herbst]

Originally Posted by Knufire

Can you please show us where FIRST states that Regional Competitions have the authority to create their own rules?

There is no such rule. However, most of the rules are written such that volunteers in certain key roles have power over how they are executed. For example, the game section typically specifically states that the final decision on all game rules falls with the head ref, and the robot section states that the final decision on all robot rules falls with the LRI.

Similarly, note the following from the section on people being in the pit during ceremonies (emphasis mine):

Should a team need to remain in their pit to continue work on their robot during the Opening or Closing Ceremonies, the team should follow the rules below.

What is not clear here is the same as in previous years- who determines whether or not a team needs to remain in the pit? At some regionals, the team gets to opt in or out freely. At the regionals I have been at, it is typically a decision made by key volunteers discussing the matter with specific teams.

Finally, I encourage everyone to consider section 4.9.1:

4.9.1 All Teams Should Attend

We encourage all team members to attend the ceremonies, on time, to show appreciation for the event and those people involved who are volunteering their time and efforts.

FIRST now has clearly stated that if a team needs to continue working in their pit (presumably to have a robot that is operable) they can have no more than 5 people in their pit. However, they have very explicitly stated that "all teams should attend" and clearly want everyone to be there.

Out of respect for those who coordinate the ceremonies, those presenting in the ceremonies, your mentors and parents, the volunteers at the event, and FIRST's wishes, I hope that every team member makes an effort to attend the ceremonies.