paper: Stop the Stop Build

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by marshall

My my attitudes have changed...

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...5&postcount=34

If you are thinking Joe's attitude has changed... I don't know. I am not Joe.

I think the general idea of building a support robot for one of the elite teams. (Or having the elite team provide you a support bot to take to an event) is problematic. Not having a bag day will still make it problematic only more so.

No disrespect intended for 900 or the others involved in the topic of Joe's post.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by FrankJ

If you are thinking Joe's attitude has changed... I don't know. I am not Joe.

I think the general idea of building a support robot for one of the elite teams. (Or having the elite team provide you a support bot to take to an event) is problematic. Not having a bag day will still make it problematic only more so.

No disrespect intended for 900 or the others involved in the topic of Joe's post.

I suppose that's the issue I'm getting at. Removing stop build in fact opens up new possibilities for teams to collaborate both at an event and prior to an event starting. Just a thought.

[nuclearnerd]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The compromise solution presented here is brilliant, and is something that could be implemented immediately without any logistical changes on FIRST's end. 8 hours of unbag time a week for all teams would be a huge improvement over the current system, and I suspect it would eliminate the need for practice robots for many mid tier teams. Upper level teams may still choose to build one, but the advantage gained over everyone else would be reduced.

+1.

The only question I have with the compromise (and this applies to existing district rules) is: Doesn't unbag time become an unlimited withholding allowance? What is stopping teams from tying a bunch of spare parts to the robot before re-bagging it? If that's not really a concern, is there any point in keeping a 30lb withholding allowance?

[FrankJ]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

+1.

The only question I have with the compromise (and this applies to existing district rules) is: Doesn't unbag time become an unlimited withholding allowance? What is stopping teams from tying a bunch of spare parts to the robot before re-bagging it? If that's not really a concern, is there any point in keeping a 30lb withholding allowance?

Under current rules, District teams are suppose to respect the withholding allowance during the unbag time. Admittedly the only thing that keeps teams from unlimited spare parts is respect for the rules.

One advantage of district unbag is you are in your shop. You are allowed to fabricate unlimited amount of parts during the unbag window.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

+1.

The only question I have with the compromise (and this applies to existing district rules) is: Doesn't unbag time become an unlimited withholding allowance? What is stopping teams from tying a bunch of spare parts to the robot before re-bagging it? If that's not really a concern, is there any point in keeping a 30lb withholding allowance?

The withholding allowance rules also apply during unbag windows. You cannot introduce more than 30 pounds of non-COTS parts machined outside of the window, during the unbag window. You also get just one withholdling allowance for both the unbag window and the district event the same week as the window (District unbag times are tied to competing at events) - so it's not like you can put 30 pounds on at the shop and 30 pounds more at the event.

You can introduce as many parts as you want that were machined during the unbag window, into the bag.

[jee7s]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Unbag time in your own shop is one of the biggest reasons District teams improve so rapidly and play at such a higher level. Give this advantage to everyone, every week, and everyone is satisfied.

This, in my humble opinion, this is why Zondag's proposal won't fly for Regional teams. FIRST wants everyone to move to Districts. Being able to highlight the work time out of the bag in your shop to teams is a substantial motivator to get people moving toward the district model. Particularly for Texas, where we are so large that the travel logistics are a big headache for teams, removing this distinction will further push teams here to stay with the Regional model. In my conversations with Texas teams, having the time out of the bag was consistently a top 3 reason for interest in districts. And, more often than not, that was enough of a reason to get a team to work through the hassle of planning the extra trips.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of having time to work out of the bag. But, I think that numbers wise, there are a lot of teams that like the idea that the commitment expected of students is well defined and time limited. Doing away with the bag entirely would present a lot of headaches for teams with students that are attracted to many other activities. I think Jim's compromise is a great one, but I also suspect it is not something we will see implemented.

[Joe Johnson]

This is my main argument for just ripping the band-aide off rather than going with the 8 hour per week window: The rules around withholding are already a hot mess, I can see how this 8 hour per week rule could make this situation worse.

If the only way I can get rid of the stop build rule is to make this half step happen for a few years, then I'll take it and be happy but I would much rather just make a clean break. Kill the bags, kill the tags, kill the entire withholding rules...

Dr. Joe J.

[Allison K]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

The withholding allowance rules also apply during unbag windows. You cannot introduce more than 30 pounds of non-COTS parts machined outside of the window, during the unbag window. You also get just one withholdling allowance for both the unbag window and the district event the same week as the window (District unbag times are tied to competing at events) - so it's not like you can put 30 pounds on at the shop and 30 pounds more at the event.

You can introduce as many parts as you want that were machined during the unbag window, into the bag.

While definitely a sound interpretation of the 2016 withholding rules, that sounds awful to try to keep track of in the context of a weekly unbag period... Uh, how many pounds did we add on last week? Was that part made inside or outside of the window? What's the total weight of parts we made outside of the window between last event and our next one?

Would a withholding even be necessary with a weekly unbag period? I suppose that might hurt teams that use withholding to keep their control system out so that they can use it on a practice/twin or test bed without having to buy duplicates of all the (rather costly for some teams) components. Would also get messy with regards to sending out parts to a sponsor... since it couldn't be withholding and would be impractical to try to have the machining done during the same window of the time the team is meeting (and even if it was practical, that's an awkward interpretation of unbag time).

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by marshall

My my attitudes have changed...

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/s...5&postcount=34

I am not seeing the disconnect that others see. I believe that I can be FOR removing the stop build rules and still be AGAINST having the top teams cheesecake the soul out of a lower tier team.

I have a yardstick. It has inspiration tick marks along its length. I take the controversial position that it is more inspirational to have a team compete with a working robot of their own creation that can accomplish a game objective they set out to achieve.

I don't like excessive cheesecaking because I believe it has bad long term effects on inspiration. I don't like stop build rules because they significantly disadvantage teams with low resources and while wasting resources of high resource teams, both of which adversely affect the inspirational impact of FIRST.

You can disagree with my views but I don't understand how they are incompatible views to have.

What am I missing?

Dr. Joe J.

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

Originally Posted by jee7s

This, in my humble opinion, this is why Zondag's proposal won't fly for Regional teams. FIRST wants everyone to move to Districts. Being able to highlight the work time out of the bag in your shop to teams is a substantial motivator to get people moving toward the district model. Particularly for Texas, where we are so large that the travel logistics are a big headache for teams, removing this distinction will further push teams here to stay with the Regional model. In my conversations with Texas teams, having the time out of the bag was consistently a top 3 reason for interest in districts. And, more often than not, that was enough of a reason to get a team to work through the hassle of planning the extra trips.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of having time to work out of the bag. But, I think that numbers wise, there are a lot of teams that like the idea that the commitment expected of students is well defined and time limited. Doing away with the bag entirely would present a lot of headaches for teams with students that are attracted to many other activities. I think Jim's compromise is a great one, but I also suspect it is not something we will see implemented.

While I agree districts are the future of FRC and their benefits are a great motivator, I don't think FIRST should artificially hold regional teams back for the sole reason of trying to force them into districts. The teams in the regional model shouldn't be punished for the lack of action of the administration of the region or even just landscape(Southwest is very spread out). In addition, if a region won't see much real benefit transitioning to districts, maybe it shouldn't become a district in the first place. That being said, I think there are enough real benefits in the district model that it will eventually make its way to every region.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

I am not seeing the disconnect that others see. I believe that I can be FOR removing the stop build rules and still be AGAINST having the top teams cheesecake the soul out of a lower tier team.

I have a yardstick. It has inspiration tick marks along its length. I take the controversial position that it is more inspirational to have a team compete with a working robot of their own creation that can accomplish a game objective they set out to achieve.

I don't like excessive cheesecaking because I believe it has bad long term effects on inspiration. I don't like stop build rules because they significantly disadvantage teams with low resources and while wasting resources of high resource teams, both of which adversely affect the inspirational impact of FIRST.

You can disagree with my views but I don't understand how they are incompatible views to have.

What am I missing?

Dr. Joe J.

I think it comes down to a very fundamental difference. You see it as a top tier team taking advantage of a lower tier team. I don't. I see it as two teams collaborating on a set of goals and a common design.

One of the reasons being given, even by myself, is that ending stop build will allow top tier teams to better assist lower tier teams prior to events. What's to stop them from collaborating on alliance strategies or a better design? How is that different than doing it at an event? What if you bring your robot into our shop and we machine parts for you? What if we come up with a plan that is practically unbeatable and have a plan to transform one of our two robots for eliminations?

To me, these ideas are very much related. But hey, as a wise man once said, you don't have to take my word for it.

[ratdude747]

Originally Posted by jee7s

This, in my humble opinion, this is why Zondag's proposal won't fly for Regional teams. FIRST wants everyone to move to Districts. Being able to highlight the work time out of the bag in your shop to teams is a substantial motivator to get people moving toward the district model. Particularly for Texas, where we are so large that the travel logistics are a big headache for teams, removing this distinction will further push teams here to stay with the Regional model. In my conversations with Texas teams, having the time out of the bag was consistently a top 3 reason for interest in districts. And, more often than not, that was enough of a reason to get a team to work through the hassle of planning the extra trips.

Given the plethora of other benefits to districts, this mentality, while probably true, is sad. Holding team's potential hostage like that isn't fair to said teams who are stuck in the middle of the debate. If one can improve, improve.

Most of the benefits of districts require districts to execute. This example isn't one of them. Other than the cost of extra bag ties, there isn't any additional cost to FIRST, so fiscally it's a wash. If they have legitimate reasons to not expand unbag time to everybody, fine, but withholding it purely to steer areas to districts isn't right IMHO.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by marshall

I think it comes down to a very fundamental difference that I see. You see it as a top tier team taking advantage of a lower tier team. I don't. I see it as two teams collaborating on a set of goals and a common design.

One of the reasons being given, even by myself, is that ending stop build will allow top tier teams to better assist lower tier teams prior to events. What's to stop them from collaborating on alliance strategies or a better design? How is that different than doing it at an event? What if you bring your robot into our shop and we machine parts for you? What if we come up with a plan that is practically unbeatable and have a plan to transform one of our two robots for eliminations?

To me, these ideas are very much related. But hey, as a wise man once said, you don't have to take my word for it.

To me the idea of helping another team is completely okay. Help away. But suppose that Team A helped Team B before an upcoming competition but Team B could only use the improvements IF they were on alliances that included Team A. Doesn't seem right. Also, before a competition, Team B seems to be in the driver's seat. They can accept the changes or not. It is up to them. But once an alliance is formed, Team B is under much more pressure to accept the cheesecake proposals of their alliance captain whether they like them or not.

I know, I know, Zebracorns feel that they were not taken advantage of. I hear you. And I don't care. Well that is too strong of a statement. I care, in fact, I am happy for Team 900. It was a good experience for you. But I STILL think that such excessive cheesecaking was bad for the sport. The typical team in the future will not have a great experience having their hard work (for 6 weeks ;-) being pushed to the side so that a top team can cheesecake the snot out of them.

Dr. Joe J.

[Tim Sharp]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

excessive cheesecaking was bad for the sport. The typical team in the future will not have a great experience having their hard work (for 6 weeks ;-) being pushed to the side so that a top team can cheesecake the snot out of them.

Dr. Joe J.

I agree. One of the strongest motivational factors that sustains a team (IMO) is the sense of ownership the students have in their machine. Win or lose, being able to watch your robot on the field and knowing that part of it exists due to your hard work and effort is a powerful thing.

[Michael Corsetto]

Random thought on cheesecaking.

Would teams cheesecake less if they were allowed to enter multiple robots for less-than-ridiculous costs? We would probably enter 3-4 robots if it didn't cost an arm and a leg. The amount of time we could commit to cheesecaking would definitely taper off at that point.

I think a lot of FRC's issues boil down to program cost actually. Hmmm...

-Mike