Cheesecake robot. How far is too far?

[taaha_alidrisi]

Originally Posted by CJ_Elliott

I think conversation comes down to some people think that it would be fine or don't care and some do care. Personally, I think it should be between the teams to decide whether or not to take the cheesecake bot. IMO everyone that isn't those teams should mind their own, if you are against having your team change robots then don't. Simple as that.

But the question comes to fairness as if you were competing in a regional elimination rounds and the other alliance you're competing with has a cheesecake robot for their 3rd robot member... Hence, shouldn't you care if it affects you closely (and it does as the main post by 3360 goes to the Montreal Regional like the team I'm in 3386).

[MaGiC_PiKaChU]

Originally Posted by taaha_alidrisi

But the question comes to fairness as if you were competing in a regional elimination rounds and the other alliance you're competing with has a cheesecake robot for their 3rd robot member... Hence, shouldn't you care if it affects you closely (and it does as the main post by 3360 goes to the Montreal Regional like the team I'm in 3386).

Since it may affect you and your team, mind if I ask how you would feel playing finals against such an alliance, and not winning because of that?

[Lil' Lavery]

Not sure why it's still being ignored, but dtengineering already explained why an 100% "cheesecaked" robot is illegal.

[taaha_alidrisi]

Originally Posted by MaGiC_PiKaChU

Since it may affect you and your team, mind if I ask how you would feel playing finals against such an alliance, and not winning because of that?

Going against such an alliance makes the other competing teams face unfairness. Of course some teams have more resources and it will never change but doesn't it make you lose the fundamental values of FIRST ? Not winning is not the end of the world but knowing you had chances of winning stripped away from you because of some gray areas and irregularities in regulations, that just wrong from my point.

[BetaHelix]

In my opinion if you have to cheesecake a whole new bot into you alliance, it says a whole lot about your strategy. If you are so focused on needing this one exact type of robot that you will completely remove a functional robot from the field, it is a poorly drafted strategy. A major part of FRC strategy is the aspect of adapting to what you have and applying problem solving skills. If you can't find one speck of utility in someone else's design, you find a role for them, or you don't pick them.

Also cheesecake is not an instant win. At one of our regionals we saw one of the top alliances take the entire lift of of a robot so they could replace it with can grabbers, and they ultimately only came in second to an alliance of three bots who worked together.

As a student and the drive coach of a mid tier team, I support improving existing systems that teams have build, but oppose adding new ones that are untested or risk removing current robot function

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Not sure why it's still being ignored, but dtengineering already explained why an 100% "cheesecaked" robot is illegal.

Yes, 100% cheesecake is illegal. This thread still has value though, since anything between 1% and 99% cheesecake is potentially still legal.

[nrgy_blast]

The rules are pretty clear: you alone can't build a robot for another team, but you can help them build an entirely new robot in the time available with 'raw materials' and COTS parts. Since the rules allow it, it's going to happen. And since the rules allow it for everyone involved, there is nothing 'unfair' about it.

If you don't like something about the rules, go out and lobby the rules committee. But good luck, not even CD can agree on what 'should' be allowed.

[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.

[JohnSchneider]

Think about it from FIRSTs side. Obviously this is not in the "spirit of FIRST" so as FIRST what are your options to stop people from building their own alliance partners?

1) You could extend withholding weight to include COTS parts. Which hurts everyone.

2) You aren't allowed to bag 2 robots, but what if they bag all the parts to make a robot? Now FIRST has to say "You can only bag your robot and no other parts"

3) A plausible solution could be to include a maximum financial cost on withholding, COTS and bagged parts to ensure that a second robot cannot come in while allowing you to have spares for yourself.

All 3 of these solutions would hurt teams as the FIRST metagame stands now. Is it really worth opening that can of worms?

[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."

[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.

[BobbyVanNess]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Not sure why it's still being ignored, but dtengineering already explained why an 100% "cheesecaked" robot is illegal.

While that could be circumvented by having the receiving team involved in the production, 5.5.2 states that:

Each registered FIRST Robotics Competition team may enter only one (1) ROBOT (or ‘Robot’, which to a
reasonably astute observer, is a Robot built to play FIRST STRONGHOLD) into the 2016 FIRST Robotics
Competition.

Now if the one robot entered is significantly modified instead of replaced, that would likely satisfy this.

As for the ethical side of this argument, I think it stands that this should be agreed upon BEFORE alliance selections. If this isn't agreed upon with the alliance captain and leadership of the team being selected, then it's the picked team's call as to whether or not they alter their robot.

That being said, I don't think it's unreasonable to request this of a team if it's for the better of the alliance. If this is something that could lead to an event win, then I personally think it'd be a bit foolish for a team to refuse to consider the potential gains. It is, however, unacceptable to EXPECT this of a team.

Personally, I'd rather have the blue banner with a modified/altered robot and intelligent alliance strategy than go home empty handed because I let pride trump logic.

[Nuwanda]

Isn't the goal of FIRST to inspire students towards STEM? It's more than just the robot and certainly more than winning. Helping a team add a mechanism without disabling other features of their robot can be beneficial to everyone. However, picking a team to completely rebuild or replace their bot isn't. The situation on Curie with 1114 last year was difficult to watch. I wouldn't have wanted to be on the team being rebuilt. Seeing six weeks of work go down the drain wouldn't have been worth a win for my team. The point should be people putting forward their own work and what they've learned. If winning is worth more than that dedication and work, I wonder if you're doing this for the right reasons. You can help other teams without throwing away everything they've done.