|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#76
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Quote:
For the most part, they have come to the conclusion that there is little to be gained by complaining publicly about this or that feature of the game design, preferring back channel communications or suffering in silence depending on how strongly they feel about the problem and whether or not they think FIRST is open to hearing their input. One mentor has actually started a tradition of writing a "Dear Frank" letter shortly after the kickoff with specific predictions of how things are going to play out during the season, hoping to gain some street cred for influencing future years. For my part, I take comfort in the observation that the FIRST community (you and me) are robust to occasional bad games. We've survived terrible game designs and even worse Q&A decisions. It's all going to be fine. We'll get through this. Together. Dr. Joe J. |
|
#77
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Quote:
Quote:
That's really ugly. It didn't feel good at all. I wanted to slap myself for even thinking it - so why is that a part of this game? |
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe I'm naive, but I think most of the manual could be changed, especially early on. For example, a (perhaps unpopular) fix could have been changing the value of the bins respective to totes. Unfortunately it's too late for that now. Other issues (such as this loaning one) can still be fixed, and would be better fixed if there was more community involvement (such as this thread) earlier on*. *And FIRST/GDC listened to it Last edited by George Nishimura : 17-03-2015 at 09:58. |
|
#79
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
As in every year, the rules are the rules.
Not once have we been required to like them. We are only required to follow them. If you aren't willing to follow them, then why have them at all? Quite often teams take the rules and use them to their advantage, sometimes the advantage(s) are overlooked and missed. Sometimes they are exploited. One perfect example of both this year is the tethered robot and tethered ramp. Here is how I describe the rules to my students when they start complaining about them. When company "A" approaches company "B" to have "B" design and build a widget for them, "A" provides the design parameters. Now "B" can follow the design parameters and build a product that "A" will pay them for. Now if "B" doesn't like the parameters, "B" can choose to not build according to them and thus not be paid by "A" and not gain the profits that could have been made. Play by the rules. Exploit them if you can, but play honestly and fairly. Nobody ever said you had to like it. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
True, however as a customer buying the product of FRC that FIRST is selling (because that is what this whole situation is - buyers and products), it would be a smart decision for FIRST to take customer feedback and improve their product, lest we switch over to a competitor who gives a better experience for less money.
|
|
#81
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
I'm going to put this whole discussion into a more palatable context: Cheesecake.
Brandon from 125 mentioned on GameSense S02E03 (check around minute 42) that they internally referred to assisting other teams with mechanism modification or addition as "Cheesecaking". But why cheesecakes, you may ask? Because everybody LOVES cheesecakes. We haven't cheesecaked a team that wasn't thankful, grateful, and better off by the cheesecake we gave them. We have cheesecaked rookie teams, veteran teams, you name it. Just in 2014, I estimate we cheesecaked over 20 robots. Arguably, there isn't a team out there that cheesecakes harder than 1678. We're proud of how much effort we put into our cheesecakes, because we know the more we cheesecake, the better everyone gets. Common, who doesn't love cheesecake? I have first hand seen how inspired a rookie team can be working with our students and mentors to put cheesecake on their robot, and the thrill they get watching their cheesecaked machine succeed on the field. Just this past weekend, we started cheesecaking with 5529, a rookie team, to make their stacker robot more effective. I wish everyone could have seen the joy, excitement and inspiration on each of their students and mentor's faces seeing their cheesecaked robot make its first successful co-op stack. In fact, 1678 got its first Blue Banner on the receiving end of cheesecaking. In 2011 we selected 1868, who had a wicked fast mini-bot that was just asking to be cheesecaked. We cheesecaked that little cheesecake onto our robot in the 45 minute cheesecake-break between cheesecake selection and our first cheesecake match, and it ended up being the fastest cheesecake in the cheesecake race. For teams hating on the cheesecake, consider this: Everybody LOVES cheesecake. When it comes to cheesecake, everyone's a winner. I thought of some cheesecake hashtags for those of you who would like to cheer for cheesecakes at your future events: #teamcheesecake #nosleeptillcheesecake #cheesecakesohard #omgcheesecake #tehchezykayke #cheesecakecheesecakecheesecake #westcoastcheesecakecoast #sunsoutcheesecakesout Cheesecake? Yes, Cheesecake. -Mike |
|
#82
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
I don't think telling students they have to silently comply with circumstances they weren't aware of until someone let's them know is really the message I want to send them into the world with. Especially when someone actually knows the circumstances and conceals them.
If someone did that to my business under the guise of contract law - perhaps I wouldn't care to make anything for them in the future because the contract seemingly means very little to them. There's such a thing as constructive criticism. I'd like to think FIRST can encourage some reasoned debate. Perhaps educate in how to reasonably debate. I don't always expect FIRST will respond to criticism. I do expect FIRST will strive to be, well, first? ![]() That, of course, means sometimes FIRST will have an off year. Keep in mind that I don't care who wins. So that changes my threshold for annoyance when it comes to game time shenanigans. Last edited by techhelpbb : 17-03-2015 at 19:33. |
|
#83
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
I think Jon's post is a reasonable interpretation of the Q&A. He is a LRI & has been an LRI at worlds. If you have a question at your competition on how the rule is interpreted ask your LRI. Have your robot reinspected (required by 2015 rules) making sure the added components & source are documented.
|
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Quote:
I vehemently disagree with the Q&A response, but the response is also pretty darned clear cut and explicit. Having various volunteers at various events "interpret" the response with the "intent" of fostering a positive experience is just as bad as volunteers "interpreting" the rules in the strictest manner possible a la Dallas. We don't need interpretation of bad rules to make a good event, we need the rules to be good in the first place. The path to hell is paved with the best of intentions. While I don't think anyone is trying to make things evil here, I'd suggest it is more righteous to consistently enforce the letter of a bad rule everywhere than to create a scenario of mixed or muddled expectations from event to event. IMHO. |
|
#85
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Quote:
|
|
#86
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Perhaps the GDC is lactose intolerant.
|
|
#87
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Quote:
|
|
#88
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Even through all this discussion, I still have some serious questions.
Parts given away during build season We regularly give away sheet metal parts we make during build season after we have iterated on them or no longer need them for our robot. In these cases the teams that receive them had no hand in their design or manufacturer. Are these parts no illegal, even through all the transactions happened during build season? I'm not sure how to handle this situation as a Robot Inspector, do I get to choose where to place this imaginary line between a team building something and helping another team build something? The Q&A doesn't outlaw any form of penalties so I can only assume that the main penalty would be for the receiving team's robot to not pass inspection. So as the lending team what is our responsibility? Additions to the BOM I was LRI at Alamo last weekend. Teams regularly modified their robot and added things through out the event, as all teams do. Not once did I ask them for an update BOM. The BOM is barely glanced over as it is and asking teams to add every square inch of lexan they add to their robot is just a waste of everyone's time. I don't remember having ever been told to recheck a BOM at any event or LRI training I have been to but now the Q&A is asking us to do this for all modifications. I'm glad my LRI duties are over for the season, I'll let other people decide what is and isn't legal under this new rule interpretation. Hopefully we get a lot more clarification from HQ on this. |
|
#89
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Quote:
At some point, you have to rely on your trained key volunteers to interpret the rules correctly. There are many examples of rules we could list where some level of interpretation comes into play. |
|
#90
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams
Yes....if you serve it to every alliance, not just your own.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|