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

[FIMAlumni]

I foresee many teams creating step by step instructions for can-burglars and ramps made from Cots. 1114 stated in a previous thread that they were prepared to make a second ramp entirely from COTs if their ramp was deemed illegal.* It would not have been very hard to include a member of 1547 in the build. If these rules are intended to teach the students of 3rd robot rather than just letting the more experienced team move in and modify the robot like magic I'm all for it. Anything to get students more involved and inspired is a good change in my book. Teams are com

*citation needed

[pwnageNick]

I think this might be one of the most game-changing rule-changes/Q&A rulings since 2012 when they changed the definition of the bridge.

[hrench]

Originally Posted by Thad House

Oh I can do alot with 5 lbs. Its easily possible to build a can grabber or a ramp under 5 lbs, if you exclude COTS parts.

Our can-grabber was under 4 lbs fully built.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by NotInControl

in 2011 it was minibots. I can't even count how many minibots teams were using that they had no hand in fabricating.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

One thing to add, with the minibot example - FIRST *made an award* for lending out fabricated assemblies to other teams in 2011, and now it's illegal. Not just "technically illegal" - clearly, unambiguously illegal. Think about that for a minute.

Do keep in mind the intent of the minibots in 2011. It was expressively permitted, and awarded, to share minibots in LogoMotion. Woodie made comments about a "minibot economy." Beyond that, minibots were not necessarily even meant to be built by FRC teams. Tetrix parts were required for a reason, and they stressed that minibots were about integrating FRC and FTC together during kickoff.

The minibot was very much a distinct item from the rest of the robot in 2011. It wasn't simply an "assembly."

[AllenGregoryIV]

This is a very interesting problem. Q440 reversed some long standing precedents about what it meant to be a robot, and now this Q&A reverses precedents about how we can help other teams.

Currently I believe teams can build two robots and inspect which ever one they want prior to a match, but they can't loan an assembled gearbox to another team. This isn't the FRC I know and I don't like the changes. Maybe all of this is part of this crazy year they are putting us through, but I sure hope it all goes back to normal next year.

I can only assume the answer Q461 is to prevent teams from installing super fast can burgler mechanisms on their 3rd/4th picks at champs. If it is to prevent ramps, it's clearly an over correction.

Even for the can burgler mechanisms it doesn't help that much. Champs elimination alliances have from 8:30am to 2:30pm to build a world class can burgler on their 3rd or 4th pick before they play on Einstein, that seems doable.

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Cory

Depending on how the scenario you've laid out occurs I would argue it could be quite inspiring. Do you really think the third team would have nothing to do with the addition of this functionality? Why couldn't the act of refurbishing their robot with a team that is motivated to help make them better not be inspiring?

It was an hypothetical. Branch it any way you want. But no I don't think using a third robot as a only ramp anchor and nothing else is inspiring. Not to suggest that any team has done or going to do that.

I suspect that the time you (hopefully we) get to Einstein the winning alliances are going to have to depend on all their robots functioning together.

[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.

[Thad House]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

It was an hypothetical. Branch it any way you want. But no I don't think using a third robot as a only ramp anchor and nothing else is inspiring. Not to suggest that any team has done or going to do that.

I suspect that the time you (hopefully we) get to Einstein the winning alliances are going to have to depend on all their robots functioning together.

Depending on the alliances on Einstein, it is entirely possible to not need a 3rd robot, because of how low the points ceiling is this year. You just have to look at 2011 Einstein to see this. You only had 2 robots scoring usually, and had the 3rd one playing defense, because there was a point of diminishing returns that was easily possible at that level. It will be the same thing this year. If you can grab the 4 cans, 2 robots should easily be able to hit the ceiling.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

I suspect that the time you (hopefully we) get to Einstein the winning alliances are going to have to depend on all their robots functioning together.

I predict there will be at least two (probably more) Einstein alliances that are able to score more points with two fully mobile robots than with three.

[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

[jee7s]

Just to point it out in the event this Q&A isn't changed between now and an event:

Q359 says deploying code to the RoboRio doesn't intrinsically change it from COTS to FABRICATED. So, you can write code for other teams.

...well, you can write code for other teams, if the RoboRio is still in or returns to a COTS state after you deploy the code.

Interesting juxtaposition that further highlights the earlier points about Q461 being so mechanically focused.

Oh...and I received a battery shipment for a team that visited the Alamo Regional. I'm sure glad I didn't assemble their batteries and verify the charge, even though I was asked to do so and felt it was the GP and just downright friendly thing to do.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Mr. Van

Glad this thread got started. It seems clear to me that the intent of the rule clarification (which is what Q&A is supposed to be) is to prevent teams from building game solutions that are simply passed on to teams in order to specifically help the "giving" team.

Intent is what gets us situations like the Dallas DQ, the Orlando Incident, and other such issues over the years. Intent is what gets us "students cannot bring controlled substances to school" and someone get's expelled for taking an aspirin.

There's a lot of good intent in a lot of rulings. And then there's folks who apply policy without any common sense. I'm worried about the latter.

[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

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Do keep in mind the intent of the minibots in 2011. It was expressively permitted, and awarded, to share minibots in LogoMotion. Woodie made comments about a "minibot economy." Beyond that, minibots were not necessarily even meant to be built by FRC teams. Tetrix parts were required for a reason, and they stressed that minibots were about integrating FRC and FTC together during kickoff.

The minibot was very much a distinct item from the rest of the robot in 2011. It wasn't simply an "assembly."

I think this example is really the crux of the issue. The GDC had an intent in 2011, and they designed the game to make it strategically beneficial to teams to execute on that intent. Or...they thought they did. I don't know how common trading minibots or collaborating with FTC was elsewhere, but it was certainly a universal truth that fewer Tetrix parts meant higher scores. The ability to clone also left the top tier teams who'd done all the R&D with a very bad taste in their mouth (and way less money in their wallets).

This year, the bad taste is coming from the 'boat anchor' robots for other team's ramps. I'm not arguing that this is or isn't inspirational or GP or in the spirit of FIRST: what a team gets out of that experience must be very much its own. (And related to hopefully well-meaning but functionally unregulatable Alliance professionalism.) But if the GDC wanted to avoid this, they shouldn't've made a game that had, from the start, clearly, painfully, obviously, 'here, we'll even make it easier to get four extra points if you take them off the field'-style diminishing returns for a 2nd pick of a dual powerhouse alliance.

Now that the GDC has set the game design--and I don't even really blame them for not foreseeing this if they didn't--stop with the over-legislating. (2013 G27 anyone?) This is a community concern now. And FIRST HQ has fostered a good one, in my humble opinion. Let the game play. You will make mistakes in life that you can't save people from. Luck be with you if this turns out to be the worst of them.

[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?