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

[Mr. Lim]

My reading of this Q&A is pretty straightforward:

They want the team associated with the robot to be the ones primarily working on the robot - not any other team.

They want teams to be able to help each other, but not build entire mechanisms for another team.

I think this is fair and 100% within my interpretation of what FRC is about.

Why this thread even exists is because it's nearly impossible to come up with a rule that distinguishes between helping another team vs building an entire mechanism for them. I don't envy the GDC/Q&A responders, because I couldn't come up with a ruling that effectively distinguishes between the two myself.

But, I believe in the spirit of this response, and intend to respect it.

In hindsight, I'll be the first to admit that we broke this rule at GTRC. Our tote-based ramp was constructed from COTS materials at the event, but it was designed, constructed and tested only by members of our team. Because the ramp had to be completed and tested before alliance selections began, we wouldn't have known who our 3rd alliance partner was in order to involve them.

However, I honestly believe it would have been a better experience for everyone if teams who included the ramp as part of their robot were also the ones who constructed it. Now we're being asked to ensure that this happens, and I think that's pretty reasonable.

Does this ruling eliminate the possibility of ramps entirely?

No. But you have to go about the process differently now. Release your ramp designs publicly, and see if there are any teams who are willing to construct them. Truthfully, this is probably what we should have done at GTRC, and had we done so, I think it would've been a pretty awesome experience. It's too bad our ramp didn't come together until Saturday late morning, but I guess we'll have another chance to do it right in Hawai'i next weekend.

[Rachel Lim]

I believe that this ruling was not intended to hurt teams, and that their intention was good. The way I read it, they want teams to do well at competition, but they want them to do well and feel ownership of their robot, and be inspired by what they accomplished.

Where I feel that this ruling made its error is the line it drew between having other teams help, and being inspired. I'm glad they remembered to keep the section about allowing teams to help other teams with their robot, as long as the original team is activity working on it and the second is just advising, but I don't see why a better team can't help other teams more. As long as both are happy with the balance, and both teams agree on it, I don't see why FIRST shouldn't.

I think that the real issue here is once again how people are inspired. It is in many ways like the question of what role mentors play (which I am not trying to start a debate on, so please don't...). The balance will always vary by person and by team.

Some teams will prefer to keep their own robot, work on it by themselves, and compete with a robot they can completely claim. Others welcome the help better teams can give them, enjoy working with and learning from others and find the improvements outweigh the fact that they release some of their ownership (arguably--I'd say as long as it's their choice to work together, it's their robot).

Overall, I understand what FIRST is trying to aim for, and avoid, but I don't think this is the way they should try to do it. They're trying to bring back the idea that inspiration, not winning, is their higher goal, but in doing so forget that learning from others--and success--is its own type of inspiration.

The ruling was also extremely confusing to read, which is something they should try to change in my opinion. I wish they could just say what their intention is and skip the overly complicated details, but they we'd probably be in a debate of what fits their intention and what doesn't...