Team Update 14 (2016)

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I do not like the new blue box explanation of what "enter" means. I understand it, and I largely agree with what it is trying to do, but I don't believe it is right to twist the intent of the original in order to do it. The issue of a "spare parts robot" should have been addressed explicitly instead of wedged in to an unrelated spot.

I actually impounded a spare robot as Lonestar LRI once. A team brought it in on Thursday morning to remove part of it for their competition robot. Since it was well over the withholding allowance, I told them to pull whatever they wanted or thought they needed right away (under withholding limits), then impounded the remainder for the rest of the regional. On account of the examples of it being illegal to keep a collection of spares in the parking lot and bring them in one at a time. They were understandably grumpy that they couldn't just leave it in their trailer instead of me impounding it, but I'd been approached by people concerned that they'd brought an ENTIRE spare robot. So I had to deal with appearances as well as actual rules at that point. I'm pretty sure Norm's forgiven me by now.

All of which is to say that practice robots, spare parts, and withholding allowances make for lots of complications. While the 5.5.2 blue box is a little clumsy, a separate rule would likely be just as awkward to cover cases like bringing a practice robot to practice with but not use for parts. You couldn't possibly cover that case with any other existing rule, but writing up a rule for that specific case would likely miss others that I haven't thought of. The blue box entirely rules out bringing a practice robot to help your team in any fashion, bagged or not, which is just a more general case of the specific case above.

Also, does the 5.5.2 blue box have some sort of unintended, deleterious consequences? It doesn't seem so to me, so it seems like a pretty good update.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Can we ban the words "reasonably astute observer" forever. It's a bandaid when you can't come up with a concrete rule and shouldn't be in the rule book.
I would rather them say "Hey if you push this rule, HQ might tell you it's illegal. Its a risk you are taking." That's basically what it means.

"Reasonably astute observer" = Whoever's in the HQ hot seat this weekend. You'd better hope they've had their coffee this morning.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

I actually impounded a spare robot as Lonestar LRI once. A team brought it in on Thursday morning to remove part of it for their competition robot. Since it was well over the withholding allowance, I told them to pull whatever they wanted or thought they needed right away (under withholding limits), then impounded the remainder for the rest of the regional. On account of the examples of it being illegal to keep a collection of spares in the parking lot and bring them in one at a time. They were understandably grumpy that they couldn't just leave it in their trailer instead of me impounding it, but I'd been approached by people concerned that they'd brought an ENTIRE spare robot. So I had to deal with appearances as well as actual rules at that point. I'm pretty sure Norm's forgiven me by now.

All of which is to say that practice robots, spare parts, and withholding allowances make for lots of complications. While the 5.5.2 blue box is a little clumsy, a separate rule would likely be just as awkward to cover cases like bringing a practice robot to practice with but not use for parts. You couldn't possibly cover that case with any other existing rule, but writing up a rule for that specific case would likely miss others that I haven't thought of. The blue box entirely rules out bringing a practice robot to help your team in any fashion, bagged or not, which is just a more general case of the specific case above.

Also, does the 5.5.2 blue box have some sort of unintended, deleterious consequences? It doesn't seem so to me, so it seems like a pretty good update.

The biggest problem is that for teams that did bag two things that look like "robots" (not ROBOTs) for the intended purpose of having spare parts they will be in trouble for something that they had no idea was illegal and it's already in the bag(s). Also the current rule does not prevent teams from assembling a 2nd robot at the event, you just can't bring it to the event. You can still build it there from mechanisms that you bring.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

All of which is to say that practice robots, spare parts, and withholding allowances make for lots of complications. While the 5.5.2 blue box is a little clumsy, a separate rule would likely be just as awkward to cover cases like bringing a practice robot to practice with but not use for parts. You couldn't possibly cover that case with any other existing rule, but writing up a rule for that specific case would likely miss others that I haven't thought of.

Will there every be an obvious solution the GDC could implement to dismantle such an impressive myriad of self-constructed problems?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

The biggest problem is that for teams that did bag two things that look like "robots" (not ROBOTs) for the intended purpose of having spare parts they will be in trouble for something that they had no idea was illegal and it's already in the bag(s). Also the current rule does not prevent teams from assembling a 2nd robot at the event, you just can't bring it to the event. You can still build it there from mechanisms that you bring.

I'll grant you that this is a broken update for anyone who's bagged a "robot" for spare parts. Retroactively making things illegal is not cool. Also, I'll admit I hadn't considered that teams could actually bag an entire mostly complete robot as a spare, since that's so far outside my team's experience. In that light, a more targeted ruling to keep teams from swapping in an entire robot as a "repair" for a broken robot would be a better idea. Seeing as philosophers are still arguing about whether someone is the same "person" if you instantly swap all their atoms for identical but different ones, I don't think I want to tackle that rule tonight...

[z_beeblebrox]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

Will there every be an obvious solution the GDC could implement to dismantle such an impressive myriad of self-constructed problems?

Remove bag day?

[marshall]

Frank, after some consideration, I have but one thing to say to you:



Seriously though, no hard feelings. We found a loophole and you closed it. This doesn't mean we're giving up.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by z_beeblebrox

Remove bag day?

It can't be that simple, can it?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

It can't be that simple, can it?

I'm pretty sure I saw the annual "remove bag day" thread a week or so ago, but if y'all want to start up another one, it'd be more productive in it's own thread. As opposed to a largely unrelated team update thread.

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Oh frabjous day! Finally we can just use any pressure regulator that's stopped down to 60 psi instead of having to find one that is both rated for 120 psi and has a maximum output pressure of 60 psi.

I agree! Glad the wording was changed. I'm pretty sure that's what was always intended, but just wasn't written down properly. Opens the door to some other COTS parts.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

Also, does the 5.5.2 blue box have some sort of unintended, deleterious consequences? It doesn't seem so to me, so it seems like a pretty good update.

It seems like a clear wording to me... and doesn't change the original intent of the rule. I'm not sure what we're supposed to be upset about in this thread.

[Munchskull]

Originally Posted by marshall

To do that would be to acknowledge openly that the 6 week build season is a myth and that many teams have them.

The day the GDC does that will be the day that these problems can start being fixed.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by marshall

Seriously though, no hard feelings. We found a loophole and you closed it. This doesn't mean we're giving up.

Please do give up at finding loopholes.

The reason rules like these have to exist isn't because bag day or the GDC, it's because teams try to find ways around the rules. For a long time, the culture discouraged "lawyering" the rules instead of following the intent. Teams that try to find the loopholes to gain an advantage rather than following the intent is what causes rules like this to be necessary.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Please do give up at finding loopholes.

The reason rules like these have to exist isn't because bag day or the GDC, it's because teams try to find ways around the rules. For a long time, the culture discouraged "lawyering" the rules instead of following the intent. Teams that try to find the loopholes to gain an advantage rather than following the intent is what causes rules like this to be necessary.

This is certainly an old argument, but I continue to disagree with this outlook. Most fundamentally, teams frequently do not, and in many cases effectively cannot know the intent precisely. Every uncertainty begets the concern that another team will more accurately gauge FIRST's intent, and get away with a more rewarding strategy. The nature of competition therefore fundamentally induces teams to seek the limit of what's legal.

Similarly, when officials have to weigh the intent of the rulemakers against the conduct of a team, they find themselves also having to confront this uncertainty. How can an official know how to draw the line between permissible and impermissible conduct if they aren't willing to entertain and compare different interpretations before settling on a definitive answer?

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by AllenGregoryIV

Can we ban the words "reasonably astute observer" forever. It's a bandaid when you can't come up with a concrete rule and shouldn't be in the rule book.
I would rather them say "Hey if you push this rule, HQ might tell you it's illegal. Its a risk you are taking." That's basically what it means.

Dang it Jim, I'm an Engineer, not a Lawyer!

[D_Price]

Thank you Cad! Was just about to scour the manual to figure out what those drawings were

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

In case anyone is wondering what specific drawings are being referenced:

GE-16019 on GE-16023 are the dividers between the defences

GE-16028 is the Cheval de Frise platform

GE-16038 is the Sally Port door assembly

GE-16178 is the Cheval de Frise platform assembly

GE-16181 and GE-16184 are the cleats at the bottom of the batter

GE-16185 is one of the batter segments

GE-16213 is the "roof" of the tower

and GE-16241 is a spacer for a U-bolt