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

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

This might be where you have a problem with the answer. What they're saying here is that my team can't build something, hand it to your team and say "put this on your robot so you can now do X." It's easy to take that to extremes... But combined with the previous statement about helping teams it's clear that it shouldn't be taken to extremes. I can help you by giving you a COTS part, even if there may have been a slight modification or two (like attaching connectors, assembling a gearbox in the standard, intended way, etc). In that case I'm not building anything, I'm giving you a COTS part that may be slightly used. But I can't build a ramp and give it to you to attach to your robot. I can't give you a specially designed winch to use to lift totes. That's going way, WAY beyond helping by supplying a few COTS pieces.

I guess this is where the debate will diverge for people. To me, you've made a lot of assumptions in here about COTS parts, slightly modified COTS parts that are not outlined by a rule somewhere.

Why is the mechanical structure the end all be all? A can hook could be as simple as a tube with a bent piece of sheet metal on it. What about the software to control it in both teleop and autonomous? There is often a lot more work than 'here put this on' even if a team was given a complete mechanical solution.

I'm not condoning the above action, I just think the trivialization of integrating even the most simple mechanisms is a little much.

-Brando

[pandamonium]

This is awkward and I hope that Frank will clarify this and give us more than we have right now. If I have a printer at the event and print team numbers for other teams this is now frowned upon?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

If the GDC doesn't want better teams to strap components on to other robots, they should design a game that doesn't require better teams to strap components on to other robots to win.

[pandamonium]

What about parts that my team has already machined for other teams? DO we request them back? Do we ask them not to use them? Dow we notify robot inspectors?

[magnets]

This is a confusing update. It is also not clear what is meant by elements and assemblies.

Assemblies are things like gearboxes, assembled ramps..., but what are elements? Are they parts, software, ideas, tools, giveaways, buttons, pins, hats, chemical elements , or something else?


Possible Intent 1: Prevent ramp anchors or one time use container grabbers that 'ruin' the experience of a third partner.

The intent would be to prevent what happened to 1114's alliance with 1547 (robot was a stationary ramp anchor) or 254's alliance (1323 failed to show up for many elim matches, attempted to grab containers, failed, and didn't move significantly in teleop).

The merit of preventing these situations is up for debate, but it's clear that this rule update won't solve the problem.

Partners can (and will) still do nothing in finals matches. If we were lucky enough to be the third partner of 148, and I knew that I was likely to get in the way, I know our team would hold our robot off of the field if necessary. It's too late to correct the flawed game dynamics.

Possible Intent 2: Prevent a team from bringing another entire robot and giving it away. This is the situation where one team carries the other team to the point where they aren't involved in their robot any more.

The argument can be made that donating a can burglar or a clever mechanism and adapting it to an existing robot can be a very inspiring process for a newer team, but it's very hard to make the case that replacing an entire robot would be 'inspiring'.

FIRST has happened for a long time, and this situation has never happened. There is no reason to think that it will happen this year, but common sense tells us that the happy, Graciously Professional tradition of lending assembled gearboxes, batteries, pneumatic cylinders..., will happen quite a few times.

Possible Intent 3: Prevent 2011 style minibot collaboration that helps both teams.

Why? I don't get it.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by magnets

Possible Intent 2:
FIRST has happened for a long time, and this situation has never happened. There is no reason to think that it will happen this year, but common sense tells us that the happy, Graciously Professional tradition of lending assembled gearboxes, batteries, pneumatic cylinders..., will happen quite a few times.

I had to prevent this situation in 2012, so it may have happened some where else. It actually took quite a bit of arguing on my part to make sure the loaned robot never saw the field.

[Monochron]

I think I have found a way to circumvent the Q&A ruling a bit. As mentioned earlier in this thread, rule R11 specifies that a team may consider machinists to be "members" of their team "solely through the donation of fabrication labor":

It is in the best interests of the Teams and FIRST to form relationships with as many organizations as possible. Teams are encouraged to be expansive in recruiting and including organizations in their team, as that exposes more people and organizations to FIRST. Recognizing supporting companies as Sponsors of, and members in, the Team is encouraged, even if the involvement of the Sponsor is solely through the donation of fabrication labor.

I don't think anyone could argue that many teams are non-profit companies. Many have 501(c)3 status's of their own, sell merchandise, pay employees, etc. Therefore, as long as members of a given team provide labor to the receiving team, they may be counted as members of the receiving team. FIRST made the rule intentionally flexible. Therefore the section of R1:

The ROBOT must be built by the FRC Team to perform specific tasks when competing in RECYCLE RUSH

is easily satisfied.


Clearly, this line of thinking is lawyering the rules. I think we all have a general idea of what the GDC was going for and I think we probably agree that the Q&A appears to be more restrictive than the GDC intended. But if we take the above idea seriously, I don't see much of an issue with it. FIRST encourages teams to make connections with organizations that have capabilities greater than the team. I can't imagine FIRST would disallow the "machinists" mentioned in R11 to fabricate something for a team in that team's own pit. Why should that not extend to other teams wanting to fabricate things?

[Qcom]

This is a concern, I'd agree. While I enjoyed the direction the game design took this year in respect to encouraging coopertition, these rules will make teams a lot more cautious about loaning or asking for parts. That makes one wonder why there is an announcer calling out needed parts in the pits at all.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by Qcom

This is a concern, I'd agree. While I enjoyed the direction the game design took this year in respect to encouraging coopertition, these rules will make teams a lot more cautious about loaning or asking for parts. That makes one wonder why there is an announcer calling out needed parts in the pits at all.

I cannot disagree more. The GDC completely reversed the gains it made last year along these lines. The failures to encourage the use of the 3rd robot in the alliance were obvious to us from day one.

And loaning parts (and the associated expertise that often comes with it) is one of the greatest ways for teams to interact and for students to learn outside of their own team organization.

[The other Gabe]

Revised answer follows (for added information, please see Team Update 2015-03-17): R1 requires that the ROBOT a Team uses in competition was built by that Team, but isn't intended to prohibit assistance from other Teams (e.g. fabricating elements, supporting construction, writing software, developing game strategy, contributing COMPONENTS and/or MECHANISMS, etc.)

~the Q&A

as far as I can tell, you're still fine to give out like, a claw arm or something, or at least help in building one... this rule leaves so much ambiguity though. a good example being that in 2011, my team made extra Minibots to give out because they were really good and easily deployed (one of them made it to Einstein, so I mean, technically 2046 is the first PNW team to make it to einstein ). I don't know if that would be legal under these rules, which to me seems to be crushing the principles of FIRST

[EricH]

Originally Posted by The other Gabe

as far as I can tell, you're still fine to give out like, a claw arm or something, or at least help in building one... this rule leaves so much ambiguity though. ... I don't know if that would be legal under these rules, which to me seems to be crushing the principles of FIRST

I suggest that you take a closer look at the revised rules. Particularly the blue box in R1 and the text of R17.