Cheesecake: How far is too far?

[FIMAlumni]

Love it? Hate it? or only in moderation? No matter what your feelings are on the subject, it is happening on the field and nothing in the spotlight was illegal or bullying of any team involved. I'm creating this poll simply to gauge public opinion and here are the explanations of each level.

No cheesecake: The original answer to Q&A 461 discussed here. AKA Nothing assembled even partially by another team is allowed.

Replacements/spare parts: Allowing identical or assembled cots to be given. AKA assembled gear boxes, cut to length replacement parts, ect by another team.

Small Upgrades: Allowing small assemblies (<10lbs) built by another team to be attached. AKA Ramps and Canburglars attached to another team

Large Upgrades: Allowing large assemblies (10-30lbs) built by another team to be attached. AKA Team 900 at worlds.

New Component: Allowing entire mechanisms (>30lbs) that were built and bagged by one team and bolted onto an existing light robot. AKA bolting a full stacking system onto an existing drive train.

New Robot: Allowing an entire robot bagged by one team, to play as another team. AKA bagging two robots and giving the second one to another team.

As I currently understand the rules, all of the following are legal. If you don't believe this should be the case, I'm also curious how you would write this new rule.

[Lil' Lavery]

This thread seems pretty darn similar to this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=136919

[Jared Russell]

IMO, we should just limit it to parts that enter the venue as COTS. Easy to understand and enforce, still allows for many useful types of cheesecake, but it kills the "we build a mechanism and you bring a chassis to fit it" meta-game.

[FIMAlumni]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

This thread seems pretty darn similar to this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=136919

I agreed but it did not include a poll, I've seen a few individuals argue one way or another on multiple threads. This is a rather large community (and CD isn't even close to the size of FIRST) and I'm curious where the majority of people reside on this issue. We all have our opinions and I hope anonymous voting will help more people voice their's.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

IMO, we should just limit it to parts that enter the venue as COTS. Easy to understand and enforce, still allows for many useful types of cheesecake, but it kills the "we build a mechanism and you bring a chassis to fit it" meta-game.

Do you think that is enough though? Most of the canburgling mechanisms and truthfully, even the harpoons, could probably have been built with COTS at the event with enough pre-planning. I'm not sure that is the right limit unless the game design discourages it as well.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by FIMAlumni

I agreed but it did not include a poll, I've seen a few individuals argue one way or another on multiple threads. This is a rather large community (and CD isn't even close to the size of FIRST) and I'm curious where the majority of people reside on this issue. We all have our opinions and I hope anonymous voting will help more people voice their's.

Agreed. I also think this thread offers the opportunity for clarifying the different aspects.

For example, I understand how cheesecake came about as a term but how does the actual term apply? It just makes me hungry and want a cup of coffee. I could weigh 5000 pounds before this discussion is over.

Jane

Edit: Found the reasoning behind the term.

[Donut]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

IMO, we should just limit it to parts that enter the venue as COTS. Easy to understand and enforce, still allows for many useful types of cheesecake, but it kills the "we build a mechanism and you bring a chassis to fit it" meta-game.

This, mostly. If you can build an entire new mechanism from parts while at the competition I think you should reap the benefits, as that is no small task even for a powerhouse. Plus that still allows robots to be built collaboratively at the competition (due to theft, shipping issues, total robot destruction, etc).

The only gray area to me is the withholding allowance. For those who do not want pre-built mechanisms at all it would be cumbersome to enforce that withholding allowance parts only make it onto the robot of the team that brought them. I'm fine with withholding parts going wherever but can understand that 35 lbs is a lot of weight to work with.

[Chris Hibner]

I'm donning my fire proof suit as I write this...

As I mentioned on FRC GameSense last week, I'm not a big fan of "Cheesecaking". I actually have what I think is a better word for it, but that's beside the point.

If it's a small upgrade, or "this mechanism would work better if you made this improvement", then I think that's great as long as the team gets to keep the improvement. When it becomes adding entire pre-planned mechanisms or completely rebuilding large portions of a robot, I'm not a fan.

There are many reasons that I feel the way I do, but I don't want this post to become a novel.

For now I'll only give one reason: There are good teams with good robots that get left out of eliminations as a result. I have been to more than one event in which I saw teams that were definitely in the top 24 robots at the competition sit on the sidelines during eliminations because it was easier to throw a bolt-on mechanism on a box-on wheels.

I've long had the opinion that the best robots should advance and win (yes - I rooted heavily for 469 in 2010) so the efforts of those teams can be rewarded. When a team that should be rewarded sits on the sidelines while a lesser team is rewarded, I have a feeling that the team that is sitting out has a problem with that - and I do too.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

If it's a small upgrade, or "this mechanism would work better if you made this improvement", then I think that's great as long as the team gets to keep the improvement. When it becomes adding entire pre-planned mechanisms or completely rebuilding large portions of a robot, I'm not a fan.

Maybe that should be a key part of all this. The recipient gets to keep whatever mods are made. That should reduce the incentive for a team to get cheesecaked primarily for the benefit of another team (especially if it's an expensive add-on), and encourage mods that help the recipient perform better on their own merit so they can positively contribute to the alliance.

[aashay2035]

At Seneca (Mar Week 4 Event) there was a team 5640 (Pegasus) who needed help to improve their robot. We and 87 scraped up parts to make them a ramp. On Sunday they were not there just before their first match. So we were planning to go on the field with their robot and no one on there team. But they came on time just 2 mins before their match. If we were allowed to go on the field with someone elses robot then cheesecaking has to be allowed.

[twetherbee]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

Maybe that should be a key part of all this. The recipient gets to keep whatever mods are made. That should reduce the incentive for a team to get cheesecaked primarily for the benefit of another team (especially if it's an expensive add-on), and encourage mods that help the recipient perform better on their own merit so they can positively contribute to the alliance.

The can grabbers we added to 2512 went home with them. They earned them. Awesome contributing alliance members and great group of people to work with.

I was not a fan of the level to which "cheesecaking" was done this year, either. But it had to be done to stay competitive in this year's game. One more reason to dislike Recycle Rush.

[piersklein]

I think that the biggest thing to remember when talking about cheecaking is that Winning is inspirational.

Every team in FRC wants to win. That is why it is a competition. And the reason of FIRST is inspiration, so we should be honor bound to do anything to inspire students. Cheesecaking, being cheesecaked, or even watching a cheesecake from 2000 miles away can be inspirational. I know even just sitting at home, I was inspired by some of the cheesecaking done by 1114 and company (and the secret 4488 cheesecake), engineering on that scale and in that timeframe is inspiring no matter what. That being said it must still be approached with caution. If the following rules were enforced (not by FIRST but by the community) I think cheesecaking would become an integral and inspiring part of every FRC season:
1. Never pressure a team into changing their robot
2. The Cheesecaking team may help with mentors, parts, tools, and students, but the cheesecakee must lead modifications.
3. Cheesecakee's should be allowed to keep modifications within reason (anything under a few hundred dollars)
4. Make sure the modifications are a learning experience for all involved.
5. Make it awesome

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner

For now I'll only give one reason: There are good teams with good robots that get left out of eliminations as a result. I have been to more than one event in which I saw teams that were definitely in the top 24 robots at the competition sit on the sidelines during eliminations because it was easier to throw a bolt-on mechanism on a box-on wheels.

Honestly, if my team had one of the top 24 robots at a regional or district event and a purely cheesecaked team made it into playoffs over us. I would be pretty annoyed. But I wouldn't be annoyed at the cheesecake giver or the cheesecake recipient, I would be annoyed with myself and my team.

This event would clearly show me that my team either needs to work harder, or analyze the game better. If another team can build a bolt-on mechanism with their withholding allowance that is better than my mechanism that does the same task, I don't believe that my team is working hard enough to deserve a spot in playoffs. If there are no alliances that have any use for our mechanism, that means we mis-analyzed the game, and that we shouldn't be in playoffs anyway because we would not be able to be the most valuable contributor.

If every team would build within their means and analyze the game well, then I bet most of the "issues" surrounding cheesecake would vanish.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

...

If every team would build within their means and analyze the game well, then I bet most of the "issues" surrounding cheesecake would vanish.

I don't think it will ever vanish. In this case, I think there have been teams who enjoyed challenging themselves and pushing the envelop.

Jane

[Alan Anderson]

I'm fine with teams giving out as much sugar and eggs and cream cheese as they want, and even helping a receiving team to bake it into a wheel of delicious dessert. But I've reached a position where I think giving an entire homemade cheesecake is something that should be discouraged.

(A standardized commercial cheesecake is another matter. If every team has the opportunity to buy -- or be given -- one, then I have no problem with it. But the analogy terminology shorthand we're using here starts to break down when trying to discuss "COTS cheesecake".)