Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams

[FrankJ]

I see you point but it is a little alarmist.

• Batteries are not part of the robot.

• Assembled transmissions. Technically correct. Hopefully inspectors will be rational.

• leads on motor controllers/motors are allowed while maintaining their cots status.

• Nasa machine shop /team shops would presumably working with team input: legal parts.

Without the rule being like it is... A far sited mega team could bring in 2 40 lb ramp manipulators complete with can motor controllers in their bagged allotment in addition to their 120 lb robot. Strip the 2nd pick donor bot add the ramps, connect the canbus and power to the donor bot, load new software in the RoboRio & have a ramp bot that the 3rd team had nothing to do with. Probably not GP. I am not suggesting that a team would do this.

Teams helping other teams are so ingrained in First culture I don't see this as being aimed at that.

[Nate Laverdure]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Nasa machine shop /team shops would presumably working with team input: legal parts.

Just recognize all teams as sponsors of all other teams. <R11>, baby.

[SenorZ]

I see this being a correct ruling for the following example:

Team A is a high seeded alliance, and picks team B to be their 3rd alliance partner in the elims. Team A then sends their pit crew to team B's pit and adds components that team A built, so that team B can do what team A wants.

I've seen this happen, and I think THAT is against the spirit of FIRST. Essentially it is one team making a second robot on top of another team's chassis. This is very RARE, but I feel it is wrong.

[Justin Ridley]

Originally Posted by SenorZ

I see this being a correct ruling for the following example:

Team A is a high seeded alliance, and picks team B to be their 3rd alliance partner in the elims. Team A then sends their pit crew to team B's pit and adds components that team A built, so that team B can do what team A wants.

I've seen this happen, and I think THAT is against the spirit of FIRST. Essentially it is one team making a second robot on top of another team's chassis. This is very RARE, but I feel it is wrong.

Why is this against the spirit of FIRST? 118 has been team A several times in your above example, and in each and every case team B has been incredibly happy to work with us on improving their robot, many times expressing how inspirational the experience was. Sometimes this helps the team be more competitive in future events. (I remember leaving our mini-bot deploy system with a team who went on to use it at Worlds with much success.)

In fact FIRST encouraged this type of practice back in 2011. Since then I see this type of thing happening quite frequently, with varying degrees of how complex the added components may be. Every year we talk about what types of things we could do to help other robots in our alliance, or even the opponents when co-op points come into play. Ideas this year included devices which allow teams with no tote manipulation to be able to put yellow totes on the step, allowing for co-op bonus in matches where it may not have been possible. I think this type of thing adds another level of creativity and is very much in the spirit of "coopertition" that FIRST feels so strongly about.

This Q&A response really limits some creative things teams can do to work together to be more successful. This years rules allowing for tethered robots has maybe opened up how "drastic" this practice can be, but I'm still not sure it's wrong, and the ruling is a disappointing precedent to set for future years.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure

Just recognize all teams as sponsors of all other teams. <R11>, baby.

That's awesome. Loopholes FTW.

[Lil' Lavery]

On one hand, I don't want the alarmist behaviors to continue. The intent of this rule is straightforward, and Q&A rulings are not actual rules. This holds no precedent over the manual, and inspectors have common sense.

On the other hand, 708 machined hubs for our Colson wheels this year (during build season). Are they illegal for us to use because another team helped manufacture them? Are they legal because we broached them? Do we have to list 708 as a sponsor? Is FIRST asking us to move away from this behavior?

Btw, I would have no issue listing 708 as a sponsor. They're awesome.

[Michael Corsetto]

My two favorite quotes from the Q/A Response:

Elements and assemblies built at the event by one team to give to another do not satisfy R1 above

and

you may certainly assist another team in building new parts for their ROBOT at the event, and we encourage that

...what?

Two new potential strategies:

1. Work "with" the 5 worst teams at an event on 5 sets of RC grabbers at the beginning of the week to guarantee one of the 5 is available as a second pick. Take back the parts from the other 4 teams before elims (or don't work "with" them to install key component until after alliance selection).

2. Change our RC grabber from a 2 day build to a 2 hour build. Still pull our 3rd robot off the field for Quarters and Semis, and hopefully we can build an RC grabber "with" them in 2 hours. We will now only picked the most competent, experienced team that will guarantee inspectors know we were helping them, not the other way around. Heaven forbid we pick a rookie team that will need more help than is allowed within the rules!!

Kris said it well. Don't hate the player, hate the game. And boy do I hate this game!

-Mike

[hrench]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

2. Change our RC grabber from a 2 day build to a 2 hour build. Still pull our 3rd robot off the field for Quarters and Semis, and hopefully we can build an RC grabber "with" them in 2 hours.

Saw this at GKC this weekend where one of the finals teams --high team number--had exactly the same RC grabbers as one of the lead teams that chose them.

I don't who 'built' them or where, but I assume they worked together. I sorta thought it was nice and helpful to the younger team.

So if the "old" team sends kids or mentors over to the pit of the "younger" team with COTS parts and the kids from that team 'build' it, I guess that's okay, but not if the "old" team members actually do any work? There can't be anything built to start with (except the exceptions listed) either?

This is going to be really hard to enforce. Because my team tries for Chairman's by focusing on helping younger teams (No Robot Left Behind program), it will really limit the things we can provide for younger teams.

I can certainly see the reasoning behind this, but I'm pretty mixed on the answer.

That 'younger' team I saw at GKC is going to Champs because of this help.

[Mr. Van]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

Two new potential strategies:

1. Work "with" the 5 worst teams at an event on 5 sets of RC grabbers at the beginning of the week to guarantee one of the 5 is available as a second pick.
...

Why not work with them regardless of whether or not they are available as a pick?

This is what I believe the intent of the ruling is about. They want to discourage selective "helping" that only benefits the "giving" team. Now, having said that, it seems that the Q&A response has indeed driven this needle in with a sledge and that he ruling brings up the host of problems that Cory and others have pointed out.

As to why it is a problem for team X to bring a component that they have specifically fabricated for team Y, it effectively increases team Y's witholding allowance as others have pointed out. It also seems to indicate that there are teams that the "givers" find worthy of helping and those who are not.

Regardless, I hope this gets cleared up FAST. I think the Q&A answer most definitely throws out the baby with the bathwater.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

Why not work with them regardless of whether or not they are available as a pick?

This is what I believe the intent of the ruling is about. They want to discourage selective "helping" that only benefits the "giving" team. Now, having said that, it seems that the Q&A response has indeed driven this needle in with a sledge and that he ruling brings up the host of problems that Cory and others have pointed out.

As to why it is a problem for team X to bring a component that they have specifically fabricated for team Y, it effectively increases team Y's witholding allowance as others have pointed out. It also seems to indicate that there are teams that the "givers" find worthy of helping and those who are not.

Regardless, I hope this gets cleared up FAST. I think the Q&A answer most definitely throws out the baby with the bathwater.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

This is simply a theoretical method of satisfying the Q/A's precedent, while still getting to build a 2 day mechanism for use in the eliminations. Key is "for use in the eliminations".

However, taking mechanisms back because we didn't pick that certain team is a pretty jerk move, all things considered, and we wouldn't do it. Not to say another team couldn't though.

Very likely, we will go with Option 2 this coming weekend, and see how it plays out.

-Mike

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

It also seems to indicate that there are teams that the "givers" find worthy of helping and those who are not.

This is a little out there, but maybe - what if - not all robots are compatible with all alliances? It's crazy, I know, to think that some teams would choose specific robots because they fit with their strategies, but it could happen.

Sarcasm aside, regardless of what the pickers' intentions are (provided the pickers know what they're doing), no team is chosen at random. Every team is chosen for a reason to play a specific role on an alliance. Now if a team is chosen with an intended role in mind, their alliance partners can help them better perform in this role, and the team is willing to improve their play to better contribute to the alliance, I see no reason why those partners shouldn't be allowed to help the team.

I know why this decision was made, and while I wouldn't break the rule if they enforced it, to paraphrase Nick Fury from The Avengers: "I recognize that the Q&A has made a decision, but given that it's a stupid decision, I've elected to ignore it."

[EricH]

I expect--given the furor currently brewing--and given the number of teams that may or may not be on CD that may or may not be considering this sort of thing--that there will likely be a message in tomorrow's update giving some sort of reasoning/intent. If not in an update, on the blog.

Remember, Frank and the GDC do read CD. A thread like this is all but certain to have their full and undivided attention.



Actually, if I was going to "fix" the rule, I wouldn't touch the rule itself. Instead, I would utilize a Blue Box and note that teams building items for other teams WITHOUT the involvement of said other teams would be counted as a violation, while teams assisting other teams to build such items would not be generally considered a violation, and additionally COTS parts or reasonable modifications to same (e.g. batteries with leads, charged) would not be a violation particularly if recipient had such COTS part on their robot already. (OR whatever the actual intent of the GDC happens to be.) That blue box should be enough to clarify to all concerned what the intent of the rule is and put this issue to rest.

[Tungrus]

"The meaning and origin of the expression: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." - Chinese proverb

One team can teach another everything they know, show them how to do it and give them the resources, others will learn. Second guessing GDC's intentions are futile...end of the day every team wants to play a fair game and help others.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Tungrus

Second guessing GDC's intentions are futile...

I agree with everything except that, of course we have to evaluate their decisions. How do you think we get things changed from year to year. We still have to follow their rules, but we better be very vocal about the things we don't like. We are their customers and part of their goal is to keep us moderately happy.

[PayneTrain]

As a team who has spent their withholding allowance the past four years making assemblies for struggling teams and having judges cite that as a key in our winning Chairman's bid last year, I find this clarification disappointing and concerning.

That being said, we have been flummoxed as to how to do something like that for this game but it's great to see the GDC eliminated that problem for us.