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

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Yes....if you serve it to every alliance, not just your own.

What if you served some too?

-Mike

[cmrnpizzo14]

To me it sounds like FIRST just wants teams to at least have some sort of influence on what goes on their own robot. They specifically say that "assisting" is allowed which to me seems to indicate that as long as your team had a student helping to construct it, it can go on your robot. Shouldn't really change anything with the ramps, just have someone on both teams go and help make it.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

If you were on the GDC and had to answer the question, how would you answer it in order to allow teams to help each other but not do something like taking a second pick, handing them a ramp on a string, and saying "your going to add this now"? How do you, in a short and concise way, draw a line between what is acceptable and what isn't, while staying consistent with R1 and requiring that the robot be built by the team?

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.

For me personally, if I were on the GDC then I'd stop adding more rules and let teams do as they have done in the past and allow them to add components to other robots freely provided the newly formed amalgamations pass inspection. I don't see the harm in it. Strapping last minute mechanisms to robots to try to improve them has become a tradition of sorts in recent years and I don't understand the reasons for limiting it.

You know, the GDC could help themselves and us by providing explanations of intent when answering Q&A questions. Establishing intent with the rules helps to make "common sense" rulings easier... it's not a perfect solution but I think it might help.

[notmattlythgoe]

Originally Posted by marshall

You know, the GDC could help themselves and us by providing explanations of intent when answering Q&A questions. Establishing intent with the rules helps to make "common sense" rulings easier... it's not a perfect solution but I think it might help.

I agree with this.

[MrJohnston]

Wow... This is quite the emotional thread.

I just can't seem to get too upset about the answer to the Q&A after having read is several times. To me, it basically says, "Yes, keep helping other teams to fix and improve their robots. However, if you are helping the to construct new parts at a competition, the team with the receiving robot needs to be taking the lead in the process and, unless the receiving robot's team brought in the parts, they need to be COTS. So, if you have a brilliant idea for a can-grabbing mechanism that you'd like to have your alliance members sport, you should bring in all the pieces as COTS parts and show your alliance members how to build it themselves."

I'm good with this. Clearly, it's not okay to construct a second robot at home and bring it to competition with the idea of "loaning" it to an alliance member. So, how much robot is it okay to "loan" or "gift"? 50% of a robot? 20%? The line must be drawn somewhere and the Q&A is attempting to draw that line at "If it is on your robot, your team needs to be the one that built it - though accepting assistance is certainly encouraged."

From my perspective, there just seems to be something wrong with seeking out that third alliance member who is so inept that it would be willing to play dead (as a ramp) or sit on the sidelines during matches so that the other members of the alliance can reap the glories of victory. Instead of focusing on the aspect of helping other teams to "win," this rules seems to be push us more in the direction of "helping other teams to "learn" by insisting that those other teams are intimately involved in the construction of all aspects of their own robot. This is a good thing. After all, if a team is so inept that an alliance would do better if they were not on the field at all, is it not clear that that team has some things it needs to learn in order to have a better experience in the future?

From another perspective, if I am going to build robot parts in my shop before a competition with the idea of finding a robot to which I could attach them to help my "alliance" to win, am I really trying to help other teams, or am I attempting to use other teams to help myself to win? However, if I am scouting the robots at a competition for a second alliance pick, but not finding the "right" pick, asking a team with a potential robot if they can make a couple of modifications (with help, if needed) seems very different.

Could the Answer be clarified? Yes, it does seem to be a little restrictive for smaller items (assembled gearboxes, for instance). However, I do think it's on the right track.

As for the game itself, I've grown rather fond of it. Yes, I like throwing things at targets better and I agree that it may not be the most spectator-friendly and I do think that thrown pool-noodles weigh too heavily in lower-level events. However, it is a fantastic engineering challenge. Having gone through a build seasons and recognizing just how difficult the tasks are, I really appreciate seeing any team finding success.

As for some of the knocks:
* It encourages you to root for toppling stacks. I disagree. It does not encourage you to root for a stack of toes to fall any more than Ultimate Ascent encouraged you to root for robots to fail to make the 30pt. climb or Rebound Rumble to root against the triple-balance being attempted by the other alliance. We are competitive people. Rooting against the other team is a part of our nature. We use Gracious Professionalism as a tool to learn to be better sports.
* It encourages strong teams to sideline weak robots. Perhaps. I look at it like this: An alliance consists of three robots. All three are supposed to be on the field. Part of being a great robot is the ability to work with weaker partners and helping them to maximize their potential. It is not GP to ask them to sit on the sideline so that you can score more points. Get them on the field and help them to find a way to be actively useful.
* The points for recycling containers are too high when compared with totes. I disagree. The value for the RC's is awarded for having the ability to manipulate a second, very different object. RC's only score if placed on top of a tote on teh scoring platform. If an alliance can only manipulate one items, they've missed the point of the game.
* Coopertition is annoying. I really like it. It sets a related, but different, standard for qualification and elimination matches. Teams must be able to perform in both games in order to win a competition. Yes, it's hard. That's the point.

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

If you were on the GDC and had to answer the question, how would you answer it in order to allow teams to help each other but not do something like taking a second pick, handing them a ramp on a string, and saying "your going to add this now"? How do you, in a short and concise way, draw a line between what is acceptable and what isn't, while staying consistent with R1 and requiring that the robot be built by the team?

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.

Personally, I'd answer it in the opposite way from how GDC answered it. I would not have been as draconian as they are. Probably, I would say that the initial inspection needs to be the robot in the bag plus the withholding allowance, but in the interest of fostering teamwork at the event, teams can collaborate on modifications at the event. This idea of strapping a substantial mechanism onto a partner robot isn't new. It's happened a bunch of times. One that stands out in my mind was Gatorzilla's frisbee dumper, which they attached to their second pick in elims in 2013. I had no qualms about that. Frankly, I thought it was a sound strategy to make a stronger alliance and better that alliance's chances at victory.

And, I'm not saying that interpretation is inappropriate. It's when "interpretation" goes beyond simply "what is the rule and how do I apply it to this situation" that I have a problem with. Respectfully, I feel that your interpretation exceeds those boundaries.

I read the text of the response to Q461 and come to the conclusion that, in perhaps an oversimplified sense, teams can't help other teams with any non-COTS item. So, as has been pointed out, that spare gear that a team broached, that miscut gusset, that shaft trimmed to length, speed controller with terminals attached, etc are all disallowed as a result of Q461. Period.

So, your comment here:

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.

Is in direct opposition with GDC's answer of "no" in response to a team giving a component to another team that was brought into the event as part of the withholding allowance. The part you describe cannot be a COTS part since it has been modified from the COTS state. Ergo, that part must have been part of the giving team's withholding allowance (not COTS, not a raw material, therefore it must be a fabricated item). Making this exception for a "slight modification" is nowhere in the rules and goes beyond "interpretation" and into "rewriting". Very respectfully submitted, my humble opinion.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

It encourages strong teams to sideline weak robots. Perhaps. I look at it like this: An alliance consists of three robots. All three are supposed to be on the field. Part of being a great robot is the ability to work with weaker partners and helping them to maximize their potential. It is not GP to ask them to sit on the sideline so that you can score more points. Get them on the field and help them to find a way to be actively useful.

The most useful thing for our second pick to do at CVR was sit out the quarters and semi's and get that cheesecake on in time for finals.

I could go into the game theory as to WHY it was the most useful thing for them to do to guarantee our victory at CVR.

I guess that's not the way you personally envision the game being played, so it's not GP? That is how your statement comes across, apologies if I misunderstood.

#teamcheesecake

-Mike

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

What if you served some too?

-Mike

Should a team in the future be allowed to show up at a regional with just a functioning drive base, be completely non-competitive the entire regional then expect to be the last pick of the #1 alliance because the overall #1 team can outfit them with all the parts needed to be the niche player they need?

Or keeping with the analogy, is showing up with a spring-form pan and having someone else bake your cheesecake at the last minute and then winning the baking competition because the best chef was able to put their pre-made dessert in your pan exactly how they wanted, in the spirit of competition?


Seems it is unfair to any other participant, and is exactly why FIRST has to try so hard to define what a VENDOR is.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

The most useful thing for our second pick to do at CVR was sit out the quarters and semi's and get that cheesecake on in time for finals.

I could go into the game theory as to WHY it was the most useful thing for them to do to guarantee our victory at CVR.

I guess that's not the way you personally envision the game being played, so it's not GP? That is how your statement comes across, apologies if I misunderstood.

#teamcheesecake

-Mike

I would suggest that there is a huge difference between having a robot sit on the sideline for an upgrade/modification (as long as that team is doing the uprgrading and modifying) and having a robot sitting on the sit to simply watch. With the first, I have no issue. With with the second, I do.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

I would suggest that there is a huge difference between having a robot sit on the sideline for an upgrade/modification (as long as that team is doing the uprgrading and modifying) and having a robot sitting on the sit to simply watch. With the first, I have no issue. With with the second, I do.

Are you blaming the teams or alliance captains that execute the strategy or the GDC that designed a game that passively encourages this and provides the loophole to do it?

[Taylor]

Given the answer to Q461, would 1396's 2004 experience be legal now?

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

I would suggest that there is a huge difference between having a robot sit on the sideline for an upgrade/modification (as long as that team is doing the uprgrading and modifying) and having a robot sitting on the sit to simply watch. With the first, I have no issue. With with the second, I do.

The GDC gave us a game in which it benefits us to, if our third bot is bad enough, simply have them sidelined for the duration of the event. Take issue with the GDC if this statement bothers you. It's a function of the game.

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Are you blaming the teams or alliance captains that execute the strategy or the GDC that designed a game that passively encourages this and provides the loophole to do it?

No game is perfect the first time written. Or the second. Whether we like it or not, the mere fact that we have a different game every year guarantees imperfections in the rules.

Our first objective as members of FIRST is not to win a competition, rather to demonstrate Grace and Professionalism while competing. If a team ever knowingly sacrifices GP in order to win, I blame the team - even if it seems to be allowed under the rules. A difficulty arises because GP cannot be perfectly defined for all potential human actions and different folks are going to have different interpretations of GP. To me, "Welcome to my alliance, don't put your robot on the field" seems rather un-GP. Heck, if you can do that during eliminations, you could do it during qualification matches, too. In half or more of our qualification matches in our first event, we would have done far better had we asked the "weaker" robots to simply sit and stay out of the way. We wouldn't, however, dream of doing that.

[iVanDuzer]

Originally Posted by MrForbes

Yes....if you serve it to every alliance, not just your own.

What if you had an idea for a new flavour of cheesecake while you were at the event?

• Some robots are Lactose Intolerant (unable to accept your cheesecake)
• Some robots are on a diet (don't want to accept your cheesecake)
• FRC teams are not Cheesecake Factories (it's unrealistic to expect teams to bring 8 easily upgradeable mechanisms to supe-up other robots with when they have their own robot to look after)

STORY TIME: In 2014, one of our team's mentors came up with an idea for an "easy assist" ramp. Basically, just a passive ramp that, if a ball was dropped on the top of the robot and the robot drove forward, would count as an assist.

Knowing that we were going to seed in the 2nd or 3rd spot, and after looking over our scouting data, we knew that our third robot was going to have difficulty assisting. So we started combing the pits for robots we could add our ramp to.

We found a team with a GIANT arm on top of their robot that could be easily removed with a couple disconnected wires and some bolts. We talked to that team before elims and pitched them our ramp idea. Everyone was excited about the idea, and we picked them. An hour later, they were on the field and their beautifully machined arm was in the pits. Three hours later we all had silver medals. An hour after that, the arm was back on.

Some takeaways:

• We knew that some teams had mechanisms that would make the addition of our ramp impossible (lactose intolerant robots)
• We asked several teams if they were willing to modify their robots, and only one said yes (teams on a diet)
• We built the ramp completely during the lunch break after alliance selections and we were unable to build 7 more ramps (we're not a cheesecake factory)

In the end, our team was happy we got an effective second pic. The cheesecaked team was happy they got a chance to play Saturday afternoon. Our pit got the experience of quickly building a mechanism from scratch. Their team got practice dismantling / reassembling their robot. Everyone was happy! #teamcheesecake

[Cory]

Originally Posted by efoote868

Should a team in the future be allowed to show up at a regional with just a functioning drive base, be completely non-competitive the entire regional then expect to be the last pick of the #1 alliance because the overall #1 team can outfit them with all the parts needed to be the niche player they need?

Or keeping with the analogy, is showing up with a spring-form pan and having someone else bake your cheesecake at the last minute and then winning the baking competition because the best chef was able to put their pre-made dessert in your pan exactly how they wanted, in the spirit of competition?


Seems it is unfair to any other participant, and is exactly why FIRST has to try so hard to define what a VENDOR is.

Both of those things are huge gambles, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. I do not think that's the most likely scenario though.

There are teams we've worked with before that we know are very willing to do whatever is needed for them to help better the alliance, even if that means removing scoring mechanisms so they can focus on defense, or making other additions to their robot to become a role player on the alliance. Those aren't hopelessly incompetent teams that we've picked because we know we can railroad them into making whatever changes we want...those are teams with solid drivetrains, good coaching, and an ability to communicate well with our driveteam on the field...that may not have been able to score effectively.