Cheesecake robot. How far is too far?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I have interpreted this line (and others like it) to implicitly mean "we've been cheesecaked, we liked it, therefor it MUST be good and ALL teams should like it." Can you tell me if I have interpreted that incorrectly? If so, can you clarify what you mean by it?

I meant that I had derailed the thread slightly and was trying to put the train back on track but you can take my post however you'd like to.

[Taylor]

Conceptually, I am firmly against cheesecaking, for many reasons I won't bother to list here.

Then I think about 2013, when we completely rebuilt our robot at INTH, with the help of another team who gave us parts and labor that helped us immensely, and we told the judges about it and this team won the GP award at the event, and we were by the letter of the definition the recipients of cheesecake.

So my personal conclusion is the same that I've reached across many other false dichotomies in our landscape - student v mentor built, child v adult coach, etc.

If it works for that team in that situation, then good for them.

[GreyingJay]

To me it comes down to the mindset of the receiving team. Did they want cheesecake? Did they expect cheesecake?

"We were in trouble and team XYZ saved the day by giving us their ABC (or helping us make ABC with their resources)" - awesome. Super GP, teamwork, good for everyone involved.

"We were in trouble so we approached team XYZ and offered our drive base as a platform to build an awesome alliance strategy involving harpoonsABC" - also cool.

"We were picked by team XYZ but it turns out all they wanted was something they could attach their ABC to. We didn't even get to use our own" - not awesome. Not GP. Good for the cheesecaking team but not exactly morale boosting for the receiving team.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

"We were picked by team XYZ but it turns out all they wanted was something they could attach their ABC to. We didn't even get to use our own" - not awesome. Not GP. Good for the cheesecaking team but not exactly morale boosting for the receiving team.

Different strokes for different folks.

Any time I've selected a team, their role is always discussed prior to selection and roles are always agreed upon. Most teams have enough mutual respect to discuss these things.

What boosts morale for one team versus what might boost yours don't have to be the same...

[GreyingJay]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Any time I've selected a team, their role is always discussed prior to selection and roles are always agreed upon. Most teams have enough mutual respect to discuss these things.

What boosts morale for one team versus what might boost yours don't have to be the same...

Let's just say "I have a friend" whose team was selected by another team for the sole purpose of (massively) cheesecaking their robot, that these plans were not discussed in advance and came as a complete surprise to the receiving team, and that the entire experience was frustrating, demoralizing and even humiliating for the team being cheesecaked.

All I'm saying is, as you have said, if all teams involved are open about their intentions and agree to it, then it's fine -- but if it isn't open and discussed prior to selection, then it's not fine at all.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

Let's just say "I have a friend" whose team was selected by another team for the sole purpose of (massively) cheesecaking their robot, that these plans were not discussed in advance and came as a complete surprise to the receiving team, and that the entire experience was frustrating, demoralizing and even humiliating for the team being cheesecaked.

It is for this that the word "no" was invented.

"Hi, new partners! We selected you so that we can strip off your upper mechanical and add this stuff that we made!"
"No."
"...but we'll probably win if we do that!"
"No."
"...but that's the whole reason why we selected you!"
"Then you should have gotten us on-board with that before selecting us."
"Sorry, our bad. But you're okay with this so we can win, right?"
"No."

[CJ_Elliott]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

It is for this that the word "no" was invented.

"Hi, new partners! We selected you so that we can strip off your upper mechanical and add this stuff that we made!"
"No."
"...but we'll probably win if we do that!"
"No."
"...but that's the whole reason why we selected you!"
"Then you should have gotten us on-board with that before selecting us."
"Sorry, our bad. But you're okay with this so we can win, right?"
"No."

I like this. From what I have seen, if a team doesn't want to do something then they will say no and it probably wont happen. In all actuality I find it more frustrating to see people say that it's not gracious professionalism to use cheesecake. If the two teams agree on it then it is a decision that is made by both teams and nothing says anything about the choosing alliance member forcing the picked alliance member to put something on their robot, which would be entirely against what FIRST wants.

[Citrus Dad]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

Let's just say "I have a friend" whose team was selected by another team for the sole purpose of (massively) cheesecaking their robot, that these plans were not discussed in advance and came as a complete surprise to the receiving team, and that the entire experience was frustrating, demoralizing and even humiliating for the team being cheesecaked.

All I'm saying is, as you have said, if all teams involved are open about their intentions and agree to it, then it's fine -- but if it isn't open and discussed prior to selection, then it's not fine at all.

To explain our team's approach, we talked to everyone of the teams that we drafted last year about their willingness to add our can grabbers. They were always able to elect a different course. And they were always involved in installing the devices.

It's important to remember that it is the alliance captain who is assembling the alliance and it is the alliance captain's discretion to choose the strategy; it is not the role of the 2nd pick robot to dictate what strategy the alliance captain should be using. If a team built a robot to pursue a specific strategy and either it is not well executed or doesn't fit with the alliance captain's chosen strategy, then that team needs to accept that they may not be selected. That's always the nature of a competitive setting; it might be a surprise to some who have been only in the school system that the real world works this way too. You will not always be rewarded solely for your efforts.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by GreyingJay

To me it comes down to the mindset of the receiving team. Did they want cheesecake? Did they expect cheesecake?

For me, it's more about inspiring the receiving team.

It's very hard to inspire someone by telling them that you only picked them so that you could cheesecake their robot, and far easier if you talked to them prior to picking them.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

For me, it's more about inspiring the receiving team.

What about the inspiration of the teams not picked? The other alliances? The spectators?

The impact of actions such as this shouldn't be solely evaluated based on the team receiving the "cheesecake."

[Jared Russell]

Ethics and rules aside...

ain't nobody got time for that.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by Jared Russell

Ethics and rules aside...

ain't nobody got time for that.

RI3D at the competition?

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

What about the inspiration of the teams not picked? The other alliances? The spectators?

The impact of actions such as this shouldn't be solely evaluated based on the team receiving the "cheesecake."

Would you rather I don't inspire that team?

[BenBernard]

What bothers me about this thread is how far from "gracious professionalism" some writers seem willing to stray in their pursuit of "winning at all costs."

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

Would you rather I don't inspire that team?

I would rather you consider the totality of the actions, rather than just the impacts on one team. I already posted similar thoughts on this back in April, during the previous round of cheesecake debate.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=87