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

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

Yes, it is great to win a competition. It is also heartbreaking to lose it. However, to draft a 2nd team just because they are the best fit for your own allotments, that is wrong. Not just against the ubiquitous 'GP' - but plain wrong.

Slow down a bit their. It's okay to have your opinion but you're questioning the morals of a lot of very reputable people in our community. We've worked with teams to improve their robots for qualification matches, let alone elimination matches. In 2012 we helped our partners so they wouldn't fall off the bridge, we did this by putting rough top tread on their belly pan so when their front wheels fell off their robot didn't go with them. We've add weight to teams, asked them to remove things and much more. We've never been in the position to add a full mechanism but given the opportunity I would definitely offer it up to the team if I thought it would help our alliance win. (Not now that it is against the rules). I don't know of any team to ever complain about an alliance asking them to make modifications to improve their overall chance of winning.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Slow down a bit their. It's okay to have your opinion but you're questioning the morals of a lot of very reputable people in our community. We've worked with teams to improve their robots for qualification matches, let alone elimination matches. In 2012 we helped our partners so they wouldn't fall off the bridge, we did this by putting rough top tread on their belly pan so when their front wheels fell off their robot didn't go with them. We've add weight to teams, asked them to remove things and much more. We've never been in the position to add a full mechanism but given the opportunity I would definitely offer it up to the team if I thought it would help our alliance win. (Not now that it is against the rules). I don't know of any team to ever complain about an alliance asking them to make modifications to improve their overall chance of winning.

Sorry - not questioning any teams. I don't like the way my statement came off after reading it either. I love having teams helping other teams. In hind-sight I should have stated "complete elements" that changed the initial intent of the robot.

Yes, aiding another team with COTS is great. We have done the same in the past. We pride ourselves in lending out motors, gears, etc. Also, we have been the recipients of COTS items as well to keep our robot running.

Sorry for any misunderstanding!

[Paul Copioli]

Wow. I stop paying attention for one day and this happens.

This ruling is interesting. Very interesting. There are a couple of issues here:

1. This is only a Q & A ruling and I bet barely 40% of all teams even will have even read it let alone understand all of the implications.

2. People who have read this Q&A and follow it by its letter will be at a distinct disadvantage because several modified COTS items can now not be loaned out if they were assembled. At the same time, several teams will be in violation and not even know it.

3. Following up on #2 (like Cory pointed out), there are several, "well, they couldn't have meant this" items that are illegal to loan: any VersaPlanetary that is assembled, any WCP, AndyMark, or VEXpro gearbox that is assembled, any VEXpro Versaframe that is cut prior to the event, etc. While I assume the GDC didn't mean to make these items illegal for loaning, the Q&A response is pretty clear they are illegal.


With all of that said, what concerns me is the following scenario:

Team A is a team who has "violated" the new interpretation and has some modified COTS they put on their third alliance partner prior to eliminations.

Team C, on a different elimination alliance, alerts the lead inspector of this violation bringing the Q&A with them.

What happens then?

I can tell you this: we will definitely be team C if we feel that we are at a disadvantage by following the rules and someone else is breaking them (per the Q&A response) and I hate that I feel compelled to be Team C in this scenario.


My personal feeling on the "let's just put our [insert cool subsystem here] on team B", is that some of the things that have happened at competitions this year just don't feel right to me. Our team has a can grabber subsystem that could easily be put on almost any robot. We have plenty of spares on our practice robot and we have contemplated bringing an even full set of these grabbers if we make it to Champs. Obviously, this ruling makes that clearly illegal; but to be honest, it never really felt right to me in the first place.

I don't know exactly what I would do in this situation if I were on the GDC, but I definitely would NOT just leave this as a Q&A. This needs to be included in a Team Update as a blue box clarification at a minimum.

[Louisiana Jones]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

Sorry - not questioning any teams. I don't like the way my statement came off after reading it either. I love having teams helping other teams. In hind-sight I should have stated "complete elements" that changed the initial intent of the robot.

Yes, aiding another team with COTS is great. We have done the same in the past. We pride ourselves in lending out motors, gears, etc. Also, we have been the recipients of COTS items as well to keep our robot running.

Sorry for any misunderstanding!

This past weekend at The Greater Kansas City regional S.W.A.T. 1806 seems to have broken the rules several times. In the first instance we loaned a team our backup ramp that they then used for 6 matches of the qualification rounds. We did check with inspectors before, and they told us that they didn't see a problem with what we were doing. In the second instance we were part of alliance that drafted a team with the intent of adding a pair of RC grabbers and a noodle sweep. We took a lot of heat from the inspectors because the team we drafted was less involved then they would have liked in the outfitting process. I'd say we certainly changed the intent of their robot as we completely removed their lift mechanism to make weight. Right or wrong the ruling will certainly make us more cautious in how we deal with other teams, and who we pick for alliance selections.

[Joe Johnson]

First off, I want to salute us all here because I love that this community is able to talk through difficult issues without things getting nasty. At least in this corner of the internet, we've managed to keep Godwin's Law at bay.

Second, like so many others in this thread, I blame the Game Design Committee for this rule. I won't name names, but I can tell you that the "problem" this Q&A is addressing was foreseen by a number of well known, experienced mentors I spoke within hours of the kickoff. With empathy and imagination, these kind of things can and should be foreseen and avoided. I really believe that.

This is the evil fruit of the evil seed planted in to the fertile soil of the game design itself.

There are so many things about this game that make me feel just awful. From incentivizing Alliance Captains to chain their 2nd Draft to a tote ramp to encouraging ~90% of the audience watching the Quarter Finals to cheer every screw up and groan at every successful, this game is a Petri dish for growing unhealthy behaviors.

I really don't like how this game makes me feel. I hope that FIRST learns from this experience.

Calling 'em how I see 'em.

Dr. Joe J.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

First off, I want to salute us all here because I love that this community is able to talk through difficult issues without things getting nasty. At least in this corner of the internet, we've managed to keep Godwin's Law at bay.

Second, like so many others in this thread, I blame the Game Design Committee for this rule. I won't name names, but I can tell you that the "problem" this Q&A is addressing was foreseen by a number of well known, experienced mentors I spoke within hours of the kickoff. With empathy and imagination, these kind of things can and should be foreseen and avoided. I really believe that.

This is the evil fruit of the evil seed planted in to the fertile soil of the game design itself.

There are so many things about this game that make me feel just awful. From incentivizing Alliance Captains to chain their 2nd Draft to a tote ramp to encouraging ~90% of the audience watching the Quarter Finals to cheer every screw up and groan at every successful, this game is a Petri dish for growing unhealthy behaviors.

I really don't like how this game makes me feel. I hope that FIRST learns from this experience.

Calling 'em how I see 'em.

Dr. Joe J.

But... but... but there aren't any winners or losers this year... this game should make everyone feel egalitarian and happy.

On a more serious note, this game has some challenges to overcome... I found myself wanting stacks to topple as well in the final rounds I was watching and then I realized what I was wanting to happen... it's not a happy feeling.

[George Nishimura]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

the "problem" this Q&A is addressing was foreseen by a number of well known, experienced mentors I spoke within hours of the kickoff. With empathy and imagination, these kind of things can and should be foreseen and avoided.

Was it not possible to highlight the problems then, or is there an issue that there is no means of communicating or highlighting these problems? Or did they ignore any communication?

There are six weeks of team updates to the rules addressing any edge cases, mis-wordings and misinterpretations left in the manual. I haven't followed everything so closely this season, but we know Frank reads CD, the GDC reads the Q&A and they're both probably reachable through email.

I like to think of the manual being in beta during build season. As users, we can contribute by filing bugs/issues. If that's not possible, then I think we should think hard about making that possible. The GDC aren't ominiscient.

If they ignored any warnings, then I would feel more compelled to blame GDC.

I realize there are some issues that cannot be solved post-reveal, but I don't believe the ramp/cangrabber loan issue the original question was addressing is one of them. It's regretful that this discussion is only happening now, and seems to be a point of confusion still.

Side point: I agree wholeheartedly with your points about the unhealthy behaviour.

[RonnieS]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

I completely understand the element of FRC to aid another team to develop a portion of the robot to work better in the game itself. However, to 'loan out' ramps, claws, grabbers, etc. - that goes against all things FRC.

As a coach, I would have severe hesitation to allow another team to 'loan' an element of their allotment so that we can satisfy their needs. If my team is drafted, I would expect that you do so knowing my robot's limitations. However, if we do have the allotments necessary in our own arsenal, then so be it.

Yes, it is great to win a competition. It is also heartbreaking to lose it. However, to draft a 2nd team just because they are the best fit for your own allotments, that is wrong. Not just against the ubiquitous 'GP' - but plain wrong.

There is both positives and negatives in finishing in the top positions... you get the first pick. However, it also means that the top teams must look deep into the field to get a team that can work with them. If the top tier teams are drafting their 2nd picks because they can 'remake' the 2nd pick - that is wrong. Then why even pick them? Find a robot that can truly aid them 'as-is' with little manipulation (and no lent elements).

Why? Well, ask the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. alliances that have worked their butts off to build their robots. - and then for the alliance captain's scouting team working to no end to create the best alliance for their chances. Do they think adding a completely non-COTS element to the 3rd team on the first alliance is acceptable?

I saw 2526 draft two robots in Duluth that were better than them in scoring from the tote chutes. Not ranked higher, but better robots that could do what 2526 could not. Team 93 (rank 15) and 4818 (Rank 62) were great Tote Chute Bots that secured the win against an incredible alliance built by 2052. No shenanigans on either side - but 2526 won the Lake Superior Regional because they drafted robots that could complement their strengths - or in other words, played on 2526's weaknesses.

Perhaps it is easier to pick your 3rd bot at an event with more than 50 teams. It is a lot easier at district champs and worlds to find the robots that do fit with your strategy; the ones you don't have to modify. When you are at a district event with more than 20 rookie teams...it becomes very very difficult.

It becomes more about how you approach that team about your intentions. In all of my experiences, when we told a team that we had some ideas on how to make their robot more competitive and win...they love it and want to help. It is then our job to make sure they are involved in the process and learn from it.

We are competing this week, we now will be bringing a ton more raw materials to the comp in order to help our teams. There will be over 25 rookie teams once again and I am sure a ton of them will need assistance...this rule just scares me. I don't know if I will be able to tell a team, " No I cant help you get your robot on the field because we are not allowed to give you this per the rules"...that is something FIRST has to help with.
-Ronnie

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

encouraging ~90% of the audience watching the Quarter Finals to cheer every screw up and groan at every successful

Would you be willing to explain what you mean by this?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by George Nishimura

Was it not possible to highlight the problems then, or is there an issue that there is no means of communicating or highlighting these problems? Or did they ignore any communication?

There are six weeks of team updates to the rules addressing any edge cases, mis-wordings and misinterpretations left in the manual. I haven't followed everything so closely this season, but we know Frank reads CD, the GDC reads the Q&A and they're both probably reachable through email.

I like to think of the manual being in beta during build season. As users, we can contribute by filing bugs/issues. If that's not possible, then I think we should think hard about making that possible. The GDC aren't ominiscient.

If they ignored any warnings, then I would feel more compelled to blame GDC.

I realize there are some issues that cannot be solved post-reveal, but I don't believe the ramp/cangrabber loan issue the original question was addressing is one of them. It's regretful that this discussion is only happening now, and seems to be a point of confusion still.

Side point: I agree wholeheartedly with your points about the unhealthy behaviour.

The issues are with core portions of the game. Can't be fixed post reveal.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Would you be willing to explain what you mean by this?

In the 2015 playoff format, it is free for all in QF and SF. Meaning, you have the best shot of advancing if a) you don't screw up and b) every other alliance does.

When the audience begins to understand this, they (regrettably) begin to celebrate other teams' failures.

I believe this is what Joe J meant in that portion of his post.

-Mike

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

In the 2015 playoff format, it is free for all in QF and SF. Meaning, you have the best shot of advancing if a) you don't screw up and b) every other alliance does.

When the audience begins to understand this, they (regrettably) begin to celebrate other teams' failures.

I believe this is what Joe J meant in that portion of his post.

-Mike

When has that not been the case?

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

When has that not been the case?

A screw up in one match can basically eliminate you. Previously you could screw up one match and still win the other two to advance.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

When has that not been the case?

It's much more prominent this year because you are rooting for failures even in matches that your team isn't in. I found myself guilty of this at our first event.

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by notmattlythgoe

A screw up in one match can basically eliminate you. Previously you could screw up one match and still win the other two to advance.

Originally Posted by Gregor

It's much more prominent this year because you are rooting for failures even in matches that your team isn't in. I found myself guilty of this at our first event.

Yeah, I guess that's true.