[FIRST EMAIL] Stop Build Day Survey

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Without a bagged robot, "withholding" loses its entire definition. Besides, as the rules are now, I could bag hundreds of lbs of spare parts and it would be just fine.

Without bag day, there is nothing to stop you from bringing a different robot to every competition. Not really a complaint just an observation. But with the existing rules some even built a new robot at a competition to replace the one they brought.

True under previous years rules you could bring two robots + unlimited parts if they were bagged. Well they had to fit into 2 bags. I expect 2017 rules will have a Zebra clause to address that.

Nixing the bag, I would like something in place to prevent teams from bringing the equivalent of multiple robots to one event.

[edit] Different line of thought. Writing good surveys is difficult. Must I see are mediocre to bad. Not that I would do any better. We should give First the benefit of Occam's Razor[/edit]

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

Nixing the bag, I would like something in place to prevent teams from bringing the equivalent of multiple robots to one event.

I definitely agree with this... That has to be a very hard rule to write, though! How would you differentiate between a spare robot and a collection of spare parts? Under the definition of ROBOT that's been used in the past, it would be relatively simple to turn something from a ROBOT into a MECHANISM. Remove the radio and it's no longer a ROBOT, as it no longer has communications included.

ROBOT an electromechanical assembly built by an FIRST Robotics Competition Team to perform specific tasks when competing in FIRST STRONGHOLD. It includes all of the basic systems required to be an active participant in the game: power, communications, control, BUMPERS and movement. The implementation must obviously follow a design approach intended to play FIRST STRONGHOLD (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)

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I definitely agree with this... That has to be a very hard rule to write, though! How would you differentiate between a spare robot and a collection of spare parts? Under the definition of ROBOT that's been used in the past, it would be relatively simple to turn something from a ROBOT into a MECHANISM. Remove the radio and it's no longer a ROBOT, as it no longer has communications included.

Why is this an issue? It's not an issue for FLL or FTC or VEX... I've never seen someone complain about an FTC team switching out robots between events... granted, I don't pay a lot of attention to FTC but I have asked FTC student participants about it and they like being able to modify their robots and see improvements.

Also, I'd like to point out that a team can build two robots now provided they follow the weight and out of bag rules (it's a lot easier for district teams, trust me). They can't compete with both of them at an event and thanks to us they can no longer walk in with both of them but they can leave one bag at home and bring one with them and then switch them out after an event.

Which actually goes back to the original point, there is already a rule (new-ish) that a team cannot bring two things that look like robots to a reasonably astute observer to an event (Thanks 900!).

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I definitely agree with this... That has to be a very hard rule to write, though!

On page 25 of this document (page 27 of this PDF) you will find a rule that has already been written that satisfies this need under <R1>. On page 9 of this document (11 on the PDF) you will find another great rule in <G1> that I am sure the writers of the document would love FIRST to steal.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

On page 25 of this document (page 27 of this PDF) you will find a rule that has already been written that satisfies this need under <R1>. On page 9 of this document (11 on the PDF) you will find another great rule in <G1> that I am sure the writers of the document would love FIRST to steal.

FTC has had equivalent rules for ages now. Don't even need to borrow it from VEX:

<T7> Each registered Team may enter only one Robot (a Robot built to play the current season’s game
challenge) into the FIRST Tech Challenge Competition. It is expected that Teams will make changes to their
Robot throughout the season and at competitions.

a. It is against the intent of this rule to compete with one Robot while a second is being modified or
assembled at a Tournament.
b. It is against the intent of this rule to switch back and forth between multiple Robots at a Tournament.
c. It is against the intent of this rule to register and attend concurrent Events with a second Robot.

Violations of this rule will immediately be considered egregious, as they would be considered a deliberate
violation of the rule.

Obviously doesn't include all the subsystems stuff, but I'm not entirely sure that's necessary anyways.

[Hitchhiker 42]

For now, I think removing stop build day will give too much of an advantage to district teams, who will be able to see how they perform before iterating it more and more, as compared to 1-regional teams who only get to play one event and can't really improve more. Because of this, removing stop build day will favor district teams even more when Champs rolls around.

[cbale2000]

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42

For now, I think removing stop build day will give too much of an advantage to district teams, who will be able to see how they perform before iterating it more and more, as compared to 1-regional teams who only get to play one event and can't really improve more. Because of this, removing stop build day will favor district teams even more when Champs rolls around.

Perhaps the result of this would be seeing the expansion of unofficial scrimmage events into the competition season? If you want more time to practice and iterate, there would be nothing stopping you from getting a few local teams together to practice like teams already do in Week 0 events, but in the middle of the season.

Plus, a lot of iteration can be done just by observing other events through livestreams. Not an ideal solution, but I still think having equal (unlimited) access time is a FAR better equalizer, even for teams that do only get one event.

[Lil' Lavery]

I agree that the questions were confusing and difficult to parse. I hope this is only the first step in their (public) research process on this issue.


As this thread is starting to (d)evolve into a discussion of the actual possibility of eliminating bag day, I have one main thought on that. Nobody knows. Anyone who speaks with certainty on how the elimination of bag day would impact teams' robots, teams' performance, teams' mental health, teams' sustainability, or FRC as a whole is talking out their behind. At this point there's little more on conjecture. There are a multitude of factors in play, and almost certainly the elimination of bag day would impact different teams very differently. The bottom line is that we simply don't know. That doesn't mean we cannot pursue the change or that the change will be bad, but it does mean there's a lot of uncertainty.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Anyone who speaks with certainty on how the elimination of bag day would impact teams' robots, teams' performance, teams' mental health, teams' sustainability, or FRC as a whole is talking out their behind. At this point there's little more on conjecture. There are a multitude of factors in play, and almost certainly the elimination of bag day would impact different teams very differently.

I agree on this, for sure. (And the same for implementing districts, but that's another topic altogether.)

Speak for your own team, to the best of your knowledge--but expect to be wrong, and don't be surprised by someone else having a completely different experience. I'd put money on two teams in the same area answering completely differently because they're not the same team.

Just for my team... I really don't know. I think it'd help us on the field, but then I look at the students who got burned out last year and wonder if it wouldn't help us more if you had to "run what you brought".

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

As this thread is starting to (d)evolve into a discussion of the actual possibility of eliminating bag day, I have one main thought on that. Nobody knows. Anyone who speaks with certainty on how the elimination of bag day would impact teams' robots, teams' performance, teams' mental health, teams' sustainability, or FRC as a whole is talking out their behind. At this point there's little more on conjecture. There are a multitude of factors in play, and almost certainly the elimination of bag day would impact different teams very differently. The bottom line is that we simply don't know. That doesn't mean we cannot pursue the change or that the change will be bad, but it does mean there's a lot of uncertainty.

Nobody knows what the long term effects will be of the ending of the single Championship event either but the alleged benefits have been touted by management and its supporters. The fact that accessibility has been increased from 400 FRC teams to 800 FRC teams is a fact that holds as much water as the fact that eliminating bag day can provide up to more than double the hands on time with the machine teams build during the season. Whether or not the sum of unintended consequences in both an already executed decision and the one being surveyed yields a net benefit remains to be seen.

FIRST is an organization made up of many parties of stakeholders that can barely be corralled into certain definitions of "mentors", "teams", "volunteers", "sponsors", "schools", "management", and "STUDENTS". Tickling the sliding scale is an inherently perilous exercise, which is why we rarely see strictly positive responses to any moves made.

When questioning why some people are ready to dive in head first into murky water, remember the organization has already done this many times and will continue to do so.

A good exercise that may be worth pursuing: here is the blog detailing the strategic pillars for FIRST. How does the removal or maintaining of bag day stand on these pillars, and how does it falter on them?

[Jean Tenca]

I agree with everyone else on here that this survey is very poorly written. I honestly hope they do not use any data collected from this. Hopefully they will rethink the survey and do it again.

[AllenGregoryIV]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

A good exercise that may be worth pursuing: here is the blog detailing the strategic pillars for FIRST. How does the removal or maintaining of bag day stand on these pillars, and how does it falter on them?

That's a very good idea.

How Does Abolishing "Stop Build Day" Fit FIRST's Strategic Pillars

Expand Access and Participation, Broad and Deep:

• A Short build season is one of the hardest parts about FRC for new teams. More time allows for more time to get help and work with veteran teams. Abolishing “Stop Build Day” makes FRC less scary for new teams.
• More out of bag time allows for more demonstrations and scrimmage events during the season.
• Level the field for international teams: Teams outside of North America have a very hard time competing at multiple events. By abolishing “Stop Build Day” new areas with very opportunities for events could hold smaller unofficial scrimmages and gain experience during the season.

Increase Diversity:

• In conjunction with expanding access to new areas around the world we will dramatically add to our cultural diversity of the program.
• By abolishing “Stop Build Day” we are able to dramatically reduce the cost of fielding a competitive team making it less expensive for global expansion and deep expansion to schools and areas that cannot currently afford an FRC team.

Scale Efficiently:
- The elite teams in FRC are amazing.
- New teams need every advantage they can get and one of the biggest is how open and caring FRC teams are towards new teams. By abolishing “Stop Build Day”:

• Veteran mentors could help more young teams since losing a day of build is less important when there are more of them.
• Young teams have more time to learn, compete, and be inspired by veteran teams during the season.
• Local scrimmages and practice sessions could reduce the need for dramatic increases in events to meet team demand as more and more teams wish to compete more often.
• More time to fix the problems introduced by inexperienced teams. Pre-inspection events can be held prior to an event that allow young teams to get ready for their first inspection and not waste precious practice time

Ensure Sustainability:
Spending countless resources traveling to multiple events, building multiple robots and spare parts for them is not a sustainable solution.
- Abolish “Stop Build Day” and

• Teams can spend more of their money on growing their STEM program to reach more students.
• Have more time to support and elevate young and rookie teams.
• Hold demonstrations and workshops to increase team growth in their areas.
• Hold in season scrimmages that let teams compete more often for less cost to the program.

Achieve Broad Recognition:
The best way I can think of to achieve broad recognition is to increase the level of play on the field. Spectators don’t want to watch robots that are inoperable, uncontrollable, and aren’t meeting game objectives.
- By abolishing “Stop Build Day” we can

• Increase the level of play on the field.
• Reduce the number of robots that are inoperable during a match.
• Give teams more time with their robot to iterate and improve when there are errors.
• Give teams more time to work on programming and increase the challenge that the majority teams can meet.
• Put on a better show!

#BanTheBag

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I agree that the questions were confusing and difficult to parse. I hope this is only the first step in their (public) research process on this issue.


As this thread is starting to (d)evolve into a discussion of the actual possibility of eliminating bag day, I have one main thought on that. Nobody knows. Anyone who speaks with certainty on how the elimination of bag day would impact teams' robots, teams' performance, teams' mental health, teams' sustainability, or FRC as a whole is talking out their behind. At this point there's little more on conjecture. There are a multitude of factors in play, and almost certainly the elimination of bag day would impact different teams very differently. The bottom line is that we simply don't know. That doesn't mean we cannot pursue the change or that the change will be bad, but it does mean there's a lot of uncertainty.

Also, everyone should keep in mind that any discussion on CD is likely more biased towards competitively successful teams than is the general FRC population.

Source: https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...d.php?t=143630

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I agree that the questions were confusing and difficult to parse. I hope this is only the first step in their (public) research process on this issue.


As this thread is starting to (d)evolve into a discussion of the actual possibility of eliminating bag day, I have one main thought on that. Nobody knows. Anyone who speaks with certainty on how the elimination of bag day would impact teams' robots, teams' performance, teams' mental health, teams' sustainability, or FRC as a whole is talking out their behind. At this point there's little more on conjecture. There are a multitude of factors in play, and almost certainly the elimination of bag day would impact different teams very differently. The bottom line is that we simply don't know. That doesn't mean we cannot pursue the change or that the change will be bad, but it does mean there's a lot of uncertainty.

Sean,

I agree no-one REALLY knows.

I think we can observe the lack of "stop build" day in FTC, VRC, Vex IQ, and FLL, and draw a few basic conclusions. I know that won't tell us everything, but I think it could tell us a lot.

+1000 to poor survey. I still don't understand that first question

-Mike

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I still don't understand that first question

You should have cheated off Andrew Shreiber like I did for that one.