Cheesecake: How far is too far?

[Qbot2640]

Originally Posted by Citrus Dad

In general alliance captains do not choose teams in order of their qualification rankings....

I know how it works.

I'm saying choose the best available team for your strategy from what they can do...not for what they will do.

[Gregor]

Originally Posted by Qbot2640

I'm saying choose the best available team for your strategy from what they can do...not for what they will do.

Under the current FRC rules teams should absolutely not be doing that. Pick the team that provides you the best chance at winning, however that may be.

[efoote868]

While I didn't find this text in this year's manual, I believe R1 from 2014 is relevant:

4.1.1 R1
Each registered FRC team may enter only one (1) ROBOT (or ‘Robot’, which to a reasonably astute observer, is a
Robot built for FRC) into the 2014 FRC. The ROBOT must be built by the FRC Team to perform specific tasks when
competing in AERIAL ASSIST. The ROBOT must include all of the basic systems required to be an active participant
in the game – power, communications, control, and mobility. The ROBOT implementation must obviously follow a
design approach intended to play AERIAL ASSIST (e.g. a box of unassembled parts placed on the FIELD, or a
ROBOT designed to play a different game would not satisfy this definition)

[emphasis mine]
If a team A picks team B in elimination simply to utilize ONLY team A's prefabricated cheesecake parts, that violates the spirit of this rule. Teams get to enter one robot, not two.

[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.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

It is like you read my mind, I was thinking of the perils of Speed Racer when I was posting this. The rules have changed significantly since then. With the new Q&A it would seem you could have a 120lb Fezzik and get reinspected as Speed Racer as needed instead of inspecting them together and changing the power pathways (which was part of the 2 Robot ruling issue).

In all honesty, we had considered going with a "two part robot" (somewhat like 148) this year, but with the Speed Racer / Fezzik fiasco as part of our history on 1519, we didn't want to take the risk of having an unconventional design ruled illegal again.

This year's rule interpretations sure seem like the "dual configuration robot" approach we had in 2008 would have been permitted this year.