Cheesecake: How far is too far?

[Wayne TenBrink]

In my opinion, "too far" is when a robot shows up for playoffs that wasn't there for qualification rounds, and nobody else had a chance to select it.

If cheesecake is to be limited by new rules, I hope they strike a reasonable balance that still allows/encourages stronger teams to help struggling teams, and still allows teams in playoffs to keep their machines in top form. I like the idea of unrestricted upgrades during the qualification matches (with the required re-inspections), but with some sort of design/configuration freeze after that. Perhaps a total freeze with no changes allowed that meet the criteria for re-inspection. Perhaps a partial freeze with some nominal allowance (a couple of pounds?) for upgraded parts. No restrictions on repairs, maintenance, or software (as currently allowed without re-inspection). In summary, no significant mechanisms in playoffs that were not present in at least one qualification match.

Another thing I think would be interesting - something that would reduce the incentive for cheesecake at championship - would be to go back to three team alliances for division playoffs, with backup bots drawn from unpicked robots as needed. Then, after the division winners have been decided, let them pick their "backup bot" from any of the teams in their division. This would create "super alliances" that truly represent the best that their division had to offer, and make Einstein matches the best they could be.

[Mr. Van]

What would be the problem with the following rule? (Yes, I've brought this up in another thread, but it seems relevant here.)

"FABRICATED ITEMS/MECHANISMS/COMPONENTS brought into an event (including those on their ROBOT) must be used on the ROBOT of the team that brought them. Teams are encouraged to bring in raw materials and COTS items to assist other teams at the event. COMPONENTS/MECHANISMS that are on a ROBOT that competes in a match become part of that team's ROBOT for the remainder of the event."

In addition, what would happen if alliance selection at regionals took place AFTER lunch, and the elimination/playoffs started after a short "figure out your strategy" session?

This would allow all sorts of alterations, improvements and teams working together, but would prevent a team from bringing in a pre-built component and putting it on another team's robot. They could build something to help any team they wished, but that "cheesecaked" team would be available for any alliance to select.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[MegaAlberto]

Team 4063 is well known for helping team with their robots between matches when they are in need, whether it be donating spare parts, lending tools, etc. Once in a while, we'll see a team that comes to a regional with no robot built in the entire season (for reasons unknown to us because we consider it rude to ask why that's the case), and those teams are usually the ones we prioritize helping, so we'll help them build a robot from the ground up. So the question is, would this be considered cheesecaking or not? Last year we helped a team build a defensive robot so they will at least have the opportunity to compete, but we did it for no strategic reason whatsoever, just good ol' Gracious Professionalism. So a concern for us is, indeed, how far is too far? In a sense we are building an entire robot for them (with the team's actual support and help, of course, and usually that team will tell us what their robot should contain) and if any restrictions were made, we would no longer be able to do this. Also people could try to bend the rules by saying they're doing something like what we do, but who knows? It's hard to even take this poll baring our team's philosophy in mind. It's a shame to see something like cheesecaking in a program that aspires for professionalism, which only means we still have ways to go.

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by MegaAlberto

Team 4063 is well known for helping team with their robots between matches when they are in need, whether it be donating spare parts, lending tools, etc. Once in a while, we'll see a team that comes to a regional with no robot built in the entire season (for reasons unknown to us because we consider it rude to ask why that's the case), and those teams are usually the ones we prioritize helping, so we'll help them build a robot from the ground up. So the question is, would this be considered cheesecaking or not? Last year we helped a team build a defensive robot so they will at least have the opportunity to compete, but we did it for no strategic reason whatsoever, just good ol' Gracious Professionalism. So a concern for us is, indeed, how far is too far? In a sense we are building an entire robot for them (with the team's actual support and help, of course, and usually that team will tell us what their robot should contain) and if any restrictions were made, we would no longer be able to do this. Also people could try to bend the rules by saying they're doing something like what we do, but who knows? It's hard to even take this poll baring our team's philosophy in mind. It's a shame to see something like cheesecaking in a program that aspires for professionalism, which only means we still have ways to go.

I always got the sense that cheesecaking implied that the help you give to the other team has some sort of quid pro quo attached to it, e.g. "I'll help you modify your robot / I'll choose you for my alliance if those modifications do what I want/need". If your motivation is simply "I'll help you because I want to help / I feel bad you have no robot / it's the right thing to do" then I don't consider that cheesecaking.

[FIMAlumni]

Originally Posted by MegaAlberto

Team 4063 is well known for helping team with their robots between matches when they are in need, whether it be donating spare parts, lending tools, etc. Once in a while, we'll see a team that comes to a regional with no robot built in the entire season (for reasons unknown to us because we consider it rude to ask why that's the case), and those teams are usually the ones we prioritize helping, so we'll help them build a robot from the ground up. So the question is, would this be considered cheesecaking or not? Last year we helped a team build a defensive robot so they will at least have the opportunity to compete, but we did it for no strategic reason whatsoever, just good ol' Gracious Professionalism. So a concern for us is, indeed, how far is too far? In a sense we are building an entire robot for them (with the team's actual support and help, of course, and usually that team will tell us what their robot should contain) and if any restrictions were made, we would no longer be able to do this. Also people could try to bend the rules by saying they're doing something like what we do, but who knows? It's hard to even take this poll baring our team's philosophy in mind. It's a shame to see something like cheesecaking in a program that aspires for professionalism, which only means we still have ways to go.

I wrote the poll with the following definition of cheesecake in mind:

Cheesecake: Adding parts, components, mechanisms, or structures brought by one team onto another teams robot to enhance that robots ability.

Helping all teams compete at their best, whether it improves your own chances at winning or not, is at the heart of GP. Even if a team isn't on your alliance, where do we draw the line? Einstein had Canburglars from a FIM team that was knocked out at the divisional level. Clearly this was GP, but it also was cheesecake.

[Mr. Van]

I don't believe that anyone is talking about limiting a team's ability to help another team.

Perhaps we can make four distinctions:

1. Team A brings COTS and stock and helps team B with their robot. Team B competes with and against team A throughout the competition.

2. Team A brings components/mechanisms and puts them on team B's robot (most likely with team B's help). Team B competes with and against team A throughout the competition.

3. Team A brings COTS and stock and modifies/rebuilds team B's robot only because team B is (or is expected to be) part of team A's alliance.

4. Team A brings components/mechanisms and puts them on team B's robot (with team B's help) only because team B is (or is expected to be) part of team A's alliance.

I strongly encourage scenario 1, and I would be surprised if anyone would object to it. I believe that all of the positive elements of "cheesecaking" can be found in this scenario.

Things get a little (or indeed a lot) less clear in the other situations.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

[kgargiulo]

I believe the debate on the proper boundaries for cheesecake is ill-suited to a text-only discussion forum because the topic is emotional and contentious. We need months, not days or a week, of separation from Championship, and then a more in-person communication channel. No disrespect to CD or any of the folks posting on the topic who are authentically trying to get to an answer. I just think the evidence is clear that all the heat and light has generated some degree of animosity or at least misunderstandings and nothing close to a consensus even within the minority of FRC participants that are deeply engaged in CD.

For those reasons I’m not now posting and don’t plan to post a cheesecake opinion.

I am, however, making the observation that across many threads on this topic, there are as many different definitions of what is gracious and professional (or not) as applies to helping other teams and cheesecake as there are people writing posts. That’s an environment in which we’re all almost guaranteed to talk in circles. So I wanted to take a shot at that problem, and maybe by the time a dispassionate discussion can occur we’ll have somewhat of a common language to talk in.

I’m not arrogant enough to think that what I propose below is the be-all, end-all of how to interpret gracious professionalism as pertains to helping other teams (with or without cheesecake), but I’m offering a starting point.

I believe it is gracious to help another team to improve whenever you have the opportunity, without seeking or expecting thanks, recognition, or even acknowledgement. If there is recognition, it is gracious to be humble or even self-deprecating. Teams can be gracious with their help during or after build season, in the heat of head-to-head competition, or en masse such as posting code, design, or other tool for general use for teams you may never meet.

I believe it is professional to offer help to the best and full extent of your ability, regardless of the circumstances, in areas where you have a competency, skill, or differentiator that is applicable to another team’s need.

I believe it is not cheesecake to help a team get their robot working to the best extents of their design (or at least to the best you can given the parts and time available, even if it wasn't exactly what they had in mind) by sharing knowledge, expertise, student manpower, tools, and stock materials. That is both gracious and professional, but not cheesecake (I am so tired of this term). Helping a team turn their bag of parts into a moving chassis that performs the design intent of the team being helped, or if they didn’t have a game strategy helping them come up with the best possible use of their robot in the current game, fits this description. This kind of help is identifiable because it is general and will be reused in all matches, regardless of alliance partners. This behavior is simply the best part of the FIRST culture and a competitive differentiator against many other robotics competitions that are out there.

I believe it is cheesecake if the helping team is providing designs and/or complete mechanisms, functions, software, etc. that weren't part of the design, strategy, functionality, or plan of the team being helped. That is true even if the request for the new strategy/functions originates with the team being helped and if the team being helped collaborates on the work. That is true whether it is simple “drive forward” autonomous code or if it is on the scale of a robot rebuild. This kind of help is identifiable because it is specific, usually put into play for a Elimination alliance, and is often limited to a single function. That teams will do the work to plan for this and then the actual design, mechanical, electrical, pneumatic, fabrication, assembly, safety, and test work that is required in a very short time frame under high pressure is a testament to the kinds of students that FIRST creates.

A nuance in all this is to consider how altruism and the desire to win both affect how and to whom help is offered as regional, district, or worlds progress from Quals to Elims.

It is altruistic to offer gracious and professional help to another team (with or without cheesecake) when doing so could actually hurt your own team or at least could not benefit your team. A team can behave altruistically at any time, but in practice we see this between kick off and the start of Elims at an event (and it’s not linear). The boundary between how we help before Elims and how we help in Elims is easy to see from just one question. Does anyone on one Elim alliance offer cheesecake or (significant) gracious, professional help to a someone else’s alliance during Elims? When it comes to Elims, almost all efforts are focused internally on your own alliance. The one common exception I can think of is an alliance calling a time out to give the other alliance more time to solve a problem. That’s gracious and altruistic because the GP award has already been decided by that point. Team’s who are not in Elims may well still be helping out other teams, but for those competing head-to-head my experience is that we all turn inward to try and win. Gaining inspiration from competition, the joy of winning, and the lessons in losing are also an important part of FIRST to me (without seguing to a debate on championsplit).

I’m interested to see if this post generates a collective yawn, genuine interest, or maybe its own hate mail. Whichever won’t offend me. But I despair of ever hearing a conversation that could generate a real consensus on the OP's question if this disconnect on language isn’t fixed first.

My opinions are mine, not my company’s (which is a FIRST sponsor) and not my team’s.

[scca229]

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

In my opinion, "too far" is when a robot shows up for playoffs that wasn't there for qualification rounds, and nobody else had a chance to select it.

I love this quote. My thoughts exactly.

Originally Posted by Wayne TenBrink

Another thing I think would be interesting - something that would reduce the incentive for cheesecake at championship - would be to go back to three team alliances for division playoffs, with backup bots drawn from unpicked robots as needed. Then, after the division winners have been decided, let them pick their "backup bot" from any of the teams in their division. This would create "super alliances" that truly represent the best that their division had to offer, and make Einstein matches the best they could be.

I like how this would definitely reduce the huge redesigns unless the alliance is going to field 2 bots for the first few matches. The only problem I see is that the 3rd bot for the Division win is then most likely going to be sat out for the Einstein matches in favor of the "backup".

[Tungrus]

...create any number of rules...someone will find a loop hole.

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by Tungrus

...create any number of rules...someone will find a loop hole.

Design a game that requires cheesecaking to win, and it will happen no matter what rules are created to try and prevent it.
Design a game that doesn't require cheesecaking to win, and it won't happen even if there aren't rules created to try and prevent it.

As long as cheesecaking is required to win, it will happen. The chokehold strategy requiring a complex mechanism, limited game pieces, cluttered field, and lack of defense in Recycle Rush required it, and it happened.

Ban the ingredients for cheesecake, and stores will find substitutes. Remove the market for them, and stores have no reason to make them.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

Design a game that requires cheesecaking to win, and it will happen no matter what rules are created to try and prevent it.
Design a game that doesn't require cheesecaking to win, and it won't happen even if there aren't rules created to try and prevent it.

Eh. Cat is out of the bag now.

973 is likely going to regionals next year with 3rd picks that in an average game won't contribute much.

We will likely be able to make a sub 30 pound mechanism that allows our 3rd to be statistically far better than the other teams available in the draft.

If the rules don't change, we must assume that others are doing this as well. If we assume others are doing it, we must do it to remain competitive.

[Jared]

Everybody blames this on the game design, but I'd argue that cheesecaking has always been a viable strategy for teams who are extremely competitive.

In 2014, your third pick could become an autonomous shot blocker.
In 2013, your third pick could get a 50 point climb and dump mechanism, or a full court shooter.
In 2012, your third pick could get a bridge stinger to help balance or a simple shooter to throw balls to your side.
In 2011, your third pick could get a minibot deployment and minibot.
In 2010, your third pick could get a climber.
In 2008, your third pick could become a 30 pound lap bot.

Cheesecaking is also deceptively difficult.

[techtiger1]

At this point you might as well let teams bring their practice bots and enter those in the competition too.

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Eh. Cat is out of the bag now.

973 is likely going to regionals next year with 3rd picks that in an average game won't contribute much.

We will likely be able to make a sub 30 pound mechanism that allows our 3rd to be statistically far better than the other teams available in the draft.

If the rules don't change, we must assume that others are doing this as well. If we assume others are doing it, we must do it to remain competitive.

I've only been in FRC for two years, but from what I saw last year, 2nd picks (assuming that was what you meant) weren't on average that much better than this year in terms of individual scoring capability. Yet I didn't see cheesecaking to this extent. Maybe I just didn't pay as much attention, but I don't remember this debate at regionals or on CD.

Would cheesecaking robots from 2014 help alliances? Yes. Why wasn't it done then? Was the idea really not thought of until this year?

I guess a better question would be:
If we replayed Aerial Assist, would we see cheesecaking to the extent that we saw it in Recycle Rush?

[Jasmine Zhou]

Originally Posted by Rachel Lim

Would cheesecaking robots from 2014 help alliances? Yes. Why wasn't it done then? Was the idea really not thought of until this year?

I guess a better question would be:
If we replayed Aerial Assist, would we see cheesecaking to the extent that we saw it in Recycle Rush?

Cheesecaking in 2014 (in the form of modifying/adding mechanisms to alliance members) definitely happened, at least from 1678. Mike mentioned this in the original uproar when he popularized the term cheesecake. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=81
By the time we left the Sacramento regional (and possibly earlier, my memory is already fuzzy on this), we went to competitions knowing we'd be adding passive mechanisms to many robots in qualifications in order to maximize assist points in an attempt to seed first.

The key word there is probably "qualifications". We didn't pick robots for eliminations specifically for the ease with which we could add an assist mechanism to them- the second pick was often defense and driving, not how easy it would be to modify their robot. Because defense was still a thing.
I think that the cheesecake-ability affecting alliance selections seems to be what people are objecting to, not cheesecaking teams throughout the event.

I think we'd also see more cheesecake passed around if we replayed Aerial Assist in the current climate, just because more people have realized that it's an option.