Lesson Learned 2016 - The Negative

[apache8080]

Originally Posted by AustinSchuh

I wasn't there when our students were being judged at one of our regionals, but that was the impression that they got as well. The judges were looking for a gotcha as well. The judges figured out that our vision code wasn't student programmed, and then were done talking to the students. Completely ignoring the fact that the students contributed in other areas, and that the number of students inspired by us having cool vision was way higher than would have been the case if the entire project had dropped through the cracks. We target similar amounts of work on a subsystem being done by students as by the mentors, and that's perfectly legal by the rules, and our decision. We have students doing code reviews, writing unit tests, and helping simulate how the robot works, and assume that is how all code is written. That's a huge success, and is only really possible with significant mentor involvement and drive. Next year, I think we'll have the students tell the judges that "they found a library to do that" to deflect those questions.

I have heard of other students and mentors saying that about other teams but I didn't realize that judges were doing that also. It is a shame that people think that any robot that works really well and also looks well engineered is done entirely by mentors. This is really something that has made me angry over the last few years because you will find many people who try to take credit away from students who worked really hard to make a good robot by claiming it was mentor built.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by Metonym

Back in PNW, we sent an aux feed to the projectors that could be independently controlled from the program(livestream) feed, but would usually display the same view as the program feed. This allowed us to let the audience display be up on the projector all throughout alliance selection and awards making it easier on the people in the venue to see the changes to the alliances and awards, while also letting the people at home see everything that is happening. This is something I should have remembered for Indiana's events this past season, but rest assured it will be fixed next season.

Champs could have done the same thing if they knew it was going to be a problem. It can be as simple as plugging a cable into a different output or extending a previously run cable to reach a different output of the switcher.

I find that interesting as supposedly our 2015 AV was based of PNW's 2014 setup. I think that would be nice if we had the equipment (which AFAIK we don't).

[chamingflicken]

I thought the pits and fields could have been organized a bit better. We were in Archimedes, and our pit was the furthest away it could be from the drive team entrance to the dome. Meanwhile, our field was also the furthest one from the main entrance to the dome. Would have been nice to have a bit more balance there so our drive team didn't have to leave 35 minutes before the match began.

[RoboChair]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The tournament and game rules have some particularly troubling clauses in them. Let's all stop for a moment and reflect on how the World Championship was decided by a tiebreaker, foul points. The same rules do not require referees to explain who got those foul points, or for what. Both of these things are completely ridiculous and need to stop - they are hurting the team experience in order to have the event run faster and with an easier way to shut down teams who want to challenge things. Tiebreakers have been absurd and unnecessary since 2010 - a giant overreaction to a problem unique to the 2010 game. Just get rid of them! They are awful. No one wants to win like that. Certainly nobody wants to lose like that. Not explaining fouls means teams never learn what behavior to stop doing. Not explaining fouls means referees can prevent teams from challenging calls. Both of these things need to change for 2017.

While we were competing during the Hopper Division playoffs we were running our 2 ball auto. Every time we came back with the second ball they called a foul on us. The ref would not tell us what the heck we were getting a foul for, no course to correct what we were doing or to point out that they might be calling it wrong.

[ratdude747]

Here's one that I don't think I've seen posted yet: Championship Volunteer Name tags. Please, Please, Please make the "Volunteer" text on the tag highly visible! White on yellow isn't that. Unless I, the other volunteers, and security is blind and this sentence is highly visible.

Getting to the dome floor during lunch break was a nightmare due to the tags... Due to security (and the tag issue) I ended up spending 20 minutes on what should have been a 5 minute trip to the volunteer parking lot (forgot my phone charger).

Also, speaking of phone chargers, I miss the charging kiosks they had last year at championship. Not the most secure, but very handy.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

Here's one that I don't think I've seen posted yet: Championship Volunteer Name tags. Please, Please, Please make the "Volunteer" text on the tag highly visible! White on yellow isn't that. Unless I, the other volunteers, and security is blind and this sentence is highly visible.

Getting to the dome floor during lunch break was a nightmare due to the tags... Due to security (and the tag issue) I ended up spending 20 minutes on what should have been a 5 minute trip to the volunteer parking lot (forgot my phone charger).

Also, speaking of phone chargers, I miss the charging kiosks they had last year at championship. Not the most secure, but very handy.

I wonder if you could have asked for a volunteer adhesive band to put on your name tag. It is black on yellow. I had an issue where I was not given a FIRST Alum band at registration (the bottom left is marked with an A), I got one by asking at the desk but my brother didn't have any luck doing the same.

There was at least one charging station, it was at the end of America's center near the Marriott, I think it had an attendant as well.

[BoilerMentor]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Yes, that's the point of having the zone begin as high as it does. Any lower and the bumpers would be bumping some of the defenses. You were free to design your robot with its bumpers another half inch higher if you wanted to make it impossible to contact the defenses.

It sounds like you're not aware that bumpers cannot occupy the entire bumper zone. They are only 5 inches tall, while the zone is 8 inches from bottom to top.

Sorry, Alan, I wasn't clear. I'm well aware they legally can't span the whole zone. Our bumpers began at 4" from the ground and terminated at 9" (Actually it was more like 4.5-9 if you're measuring the backing, which was on the low side of the specified tolerance in the bumper rules). With this height and positioning they rarely contacted the defenses. If they'd spanned the zone 4.5" to 9.5" I doubt they would ever have contacted defenses.

My assertion is that FIRST made the bumper zone too large in vertical span. If it had been reduced in height about the current center of the zone, say from 5"-11" many of the red card situations for frame perimeter violations could have been avoided. I could actually get behind a set bumper height with a +/- 1/2" vertical tolerance.

The only reasonable excuse I heard for bumpers being at the maximum height position was to make the travel required to complete the scale smaller, since judgement was based on position of bumpers relative to the low goal. I'd, personally, have found a way to get the extra travel in the scaling mechanism, because the risk of high bumpers isn't worth it.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by ratdude747

Here's one that I don't think I've seen posted yet: Championship Volunteer Name tags. Please, Please, Please make the "Volunteer" text on the tag highly visible! White on yellow isn't that. Unless I, the other volunteers, and security is blind and this sentence is highly visible.

Getting to the dome floor during lunch break was a nightmare due to the tags... Due to security (and the tag issue) I ended up spending 20 minutes on what should have been a 5 minute trip to the volunteer parking lot (forgot my phone charger).

Also, speaking of phone chargers, I miss the charging kiosks they had last year at championship. Not the most secure, but very handy.

I believe that the volunteers category was the only one that had a yellow band. It was the color of the band that identified the role for all the badging for security. So the lettering didn't matter. Maybe I am not understanding your concern and the reason for a delay.

There were chargers stations around. Just not as many. They were also on the second floor of the America's Center and one in the registration area.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by BoilerMentor

My assertion is that FIRST made the bumper zone too large in vertical span. If it had been reduced in height about the current center of the zone, say from 5"-11" many of the red card situations for frame perimeter violations could have been avoided.

I don't understand how further restricting the options for bumper height would help reduce problems teams are having with bumper height.

The only reasonable excuse I heard for bumpers being at the maximum height position was to make the travel required to complete the scale smaller, since judgement was based on position of bumpers relative to the low goal.

Yeah, I'd call that an excuse. But here's an actual reason: higher bumpers give more options for ball intake mechanisms.

[jtrv]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

At one of our district events, FRC judges came in and asked our team, a few dozen times, in a few different ways, who built the robot. Before entering our pit, I happened to overhear that they were trying to figure out "who the mentor built robots are". The questions they asked my team were "gotcha" questions, all phrasing essentially the same question in different ways until the kids referred to a sponsor or mentor as having helped with some portion of the robot, at which point the judges would harp on that point. I believe these were the culture judges, not the technical judges, and they simply would not ask about anything other than different ways to phrase the question "did your mentors build and program the robot". We were not asked about our STEM outreach, our business plan, our team spirit, and ultimately I can't help but fear we were disqualified from those awards at that district because our kids' answers to the "mentor built" questions didn't pass the judges' standards.

Oh man. This is real.

When I was a student, as Chris knows, I spent a lot of time in the pits. However, I was a programmer who did only programming (and driving in 2015). I knew nothing about the details of how it worked mechanically - only a basic overview, e.g. this did this and that did that. If something broke, I was not the one who knew how to fix it or why it broke, unless it was quite obvious. I was constantly nervous that I would get asked a question about the mechanical details of the robot and that I wouldn't be able to answer it well enough, and thus hurting my team's chances at any awards. Thankfully, I was often busy during judge visits with code, but this worry was a very real thing for my first couple of years on the team, and I am absolutely sure that I was/am not alone in that.

[Katie_UPS]

Originally Posted by jtrv

I was constantly nervous that I would get asked a question about the mechanical details of the robot and that I wouldn't be able to answer it well enough, and thus hurting my team's chances at any awards.

I have been taught and have taught students I've worked with to say, "I did not work on X, but let me grab so-and-so who knows more about this topic." There is no point floundering if someone with more knowledge is in the pit.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

I have been taught and have taught students I've worked with to say, "I did not work on X, but let me grab so-and-so who knows more about this topic." There is no point floundering if someone with more knowledge is in the pit.

Sometimes it's not avoidable. We had at least one set of judges specifically seek out students who were less knowledgeable about our business plan in order to determine how much the general team knew about the "business side." I guess they were impressed enough to still give us the Entrepreneurship Award.

[jweston]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

At one of our district events, FRC judges came in and asked our team, a few dozen times, in a few different ways, who built the robot. Before entering our pit, I happened to overhear that they were trying to figure out "who the mentor built robots are". The questions they asked my team were "gotcha" questions, all phrasing essentially the same question in different ways until the kids referred to a sponsor or mentor as having helped with some portion of the robot, at which point the judges would harp on that point. I believe these were the culture judges, not the technical judges, and they simply would not ask about anything other than different ways to phrase the question "did your mentors build and program the robot". We were not asked about our STEM outreach, our business plan, our team spirit, and ultimately I can't help but fear we were disqualified from those awards at that district because our kids' answers to the "mentor built" questions didn't pass the judges' standards.

Walking the line between "mentor built" and "mentor enabled" can be a fine one, especially for teams that are deficient in certain student skillsets. "Mentor built" often means different things to different people.

It can be a tough call when you have, for instance, advanced students on your mechanical and electrical team but only basic skilled students on your programming team. Do you tell the mechanical and electrical teams they can't build certain things because the programmers won't be able to support it? If you do allow mechanical and electrical to build to their potential, how much and what kind of support as a mentor do you provide to the overwhelmed programmers? How do you balance success to encourage pursuit of STEM with student participation? It's not easy. The answers will be a little different for each team in any given year.

Getting back to judges, another worry I have is once in a while a judge will mistake one of our students as a mentor. This usually happens to taller, mature, highly knowledgable seniors. Sometimes I get the feeling that we weren't believed when we correct this misperception.

Originally Posted by jtrv

Oh man. This is real.

When I was a student, as Chris knows, I spent a lot of time in the pits. However, I was a programmer who did only programming (and driving in 2015). I knew nothing about the details of how it worked mechanically - only a basic overview, e.g. this did this and that did that. If something broke, I was not the one who knew how to fix it or why it broke, unless it was quite obvious. I was constantly nervous that I would get asked a question about the mechanical details of the robot and that I wouldn't be able to answer it well enough, and thus hurting my team's chances at any awards. Thankfully, I was often busy during judge visits with code, but this worry was a very real thing for my first couple of years on the team, and I am absolutely sure that I was/am not alone in that.

This is another thing that concerns me. It's impossible to have all students thoroughly cross-trained to the extent that any one of them could equally answer all questions.

I think the best a student can do when a judge approaches you with questions that you don't know the answer is to be honest. Tell them what your role is with the team, offer to find another student who can answer the judge's questions, and ask them if they have any questions that pertain to your role.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by jweston

Walking the line between "mentor built" and "mentor enabled" can be a fine one, especially for teams that are deficient in certain student skillsets. "Mentor built" often means different things to different people.

It can be a tough call when you have, for instance, advanced students on your mechanical and electrical team but only basic skilled students on your programming team. Do you tell the mechanical and electrical teams they can't build certain things because the programmers won't be able to support it? If you do allow mechanical and electrical to build to their potential, how much and what kind of support as a mentor do you provide to the overwhelmed programmers? How do you balance success to encourage pursuit of STEM with student participation? It's not easy. The answers will be a little different for each team in any given year.

Getting back to judges, another worry I have is once in a while a judge will mistake one of our students as a mentor. This usually happens to taller, mature, highly knowledgable seniors. Sometimes I get the feeling that we weren't believed when we correct this misperception.

Quite honestly, though, while the amount of mentor involvement is a very important personal debate for teams to have internally, it shouldn't have the slightest bit of relevance to judged awards at all. And what a judge perceives as "student built" or "mentor built" shouldn't matter. If an inspired student can professionally explain a quality mechanism within the criteria of an award, they should be eligible for the tech award. If a team of students manages to inspire not only themselves but the community at large through promoting STEM awareness, then they should be eligible for EI. And no student should have to convince any judge that they are the sole entity who built a quality, professional looking mechanism in order for the team to deserve recognition for it.

[BoilerMentor]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I don't understand how further restricting the options for bumper height would help reduce problems teams are having with bumper height.

Yeah, I'd call that an excuse. But here's an actual reason: higher bumpers give more options for ball intake mechanisms.

I suppose it does give teams more options on intakes, though the success of mechanisms operating under the bumper would be a question for me. I'm more specifically referring to the numerous situations where teams entered another team's frame perimeter and caused damage or where robots were flipped over and all the situations where these either lead to G24s appropriately, didn't lead to G24s, or lead to G24s and shouldn't have.

For a long time we've recognized in a pushing match, all things but bumper height conserved, the team with lower bumpers wins. Unfortunately, this year the possible height mismatch between one team's bumpers and another was so large and in conjunction with drive systems meant to climb things that many robots ended up on top of other robots. In this situation damage or tipping was inevitable and ultimately lead to numerous red cards over the course of the season. A simple change in constraints could have eliminated the single largest source of drama this season.