[FIRST EMAIL] Stop Build Day Survey

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

Oh, I'm not defending that as a viable option, at all - the logistical problems are likely insurmountable.

Sorry if I missed any previous explanations. I just read that 1 post and didnt see any indication of a previous one.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by jman4747

The thing people aren't getting is how you can't set this same schedule for yourself without it being mandatory for everyone.

I feel like a broken record -

Originally Posted by efoote868

Can you understand the difference between FIRST telling a student they must stop working on their robot on a certain day and a mentor telling a student they must stop working on their robot on a certain day?

The perspective is, "I think that rule is stupid!" versus, "I think that mentor is mean!"

A 24/7 unbag time would be just fine by me. That would hypothetically work like this - On Stop Build Day, you must bag your robot. After Stop Build Day, you can only unbag your robot if you log your hours and activities.

The lead mentor that doesn't want to build past stop build day's "excuse" could be as simple as, "No because I don't want to fill out that paperwork, and the build season is over." Without a Stop Build Day, their "excuse" is "No because I don't want to." The outcome might be the same, but the perception is vastly different.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Sorry if I missed any previous explanations. I just read that 1 post and didnt see any indication of a previous one.

It was intended to point out the difficulty of implementing any sort of effective and equitable policy to reduce work after bag day.

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I feel like a broken record -


A 24/7 unbag time would be just fine by me. That would hypothetically work like this - On Stop Build Day, you must bag your robot. After Stop Build Day, you can only unbag your robot if you log your hours and activities.

The lead mentor that doesn't want to build past stop build day's "excuse" could be as simple as, "No because I don't want to fill out that paperwork, and the build season is over." Without a Stop Build Day, their "excuse" is "No because I don't want to." The outcome might be the same, but the perception is vastly different.

Unbag time takes a few seconds to log/unlog and creates something that doesn't need to be there.

"We aren't having robotics today" is a perfectly fine reason for not working on a robot every anytime a student wants to.

[frcguy]

Originally Posted by efoote868

I feel like a broken record -


A 24/7 unbag time would be just fine by me. That would hypothetically work like this - On Stop Build Day, you must bag your robot. After Stop Build Day, you can only unbag your robot if you log your hours and activities.

The lead mentor that doesn't want to build past stop build day's "excuse" could be as simple as, "No because I don't want to fill out that paperwork, and the build season is over." Without a Stop Build Day, their "excuse" is "No because I don't want to." The outcome might be the same, but the perception is vastly different.

Why is this necessary? I don't think it's a big deal. When my mentor(s) tell me to not do something or that the team isn't doing something, I don't respond with "wow this mentor is awful" - I respect their decision.

[efoote868]

Originally Posted by Cory

I appreciate the response, but I was hoping you could give some insight into what you're doing between the end of the 6 weeks and CMP. Are you saying you do not utilize unbagging windows prior to your events? You cease all robot related work?

I believe we utilize the unbagging windows - the dedicated students and mentors. I wasn't there for it this year; my full time job took priority.

From where our robot ended at the end of build season to IRI, there was not much that changed (we ended up adding a mechanism to try and scale, but this definitely was an afterthought). Our biggest improvement came at the end of our first district event, when we were able to spend time dialing in our shooter.

Originally Posted by frcguy

Why is this necessary? I don't think it's a big deal. When my mentor(s) tell me to not do something or that the team isn't doing something, I don't respond with "wow this mentor is awful" - I respect their decision.

Then look at it from a mentor's perspective. If I'm not here, the team can't work and I'm letting my team down.

[Monochron]

I am still on the fence about Stop Build Day. But I feel like I have to discuss one of the arguments against eliminating it. I believe the core of Efoote's argument is (and please correct me if I'm wrong):

Removing SBD will put undue pressure on teams who do not currently work past SBD. If it is removed, then (because "everyone else works up until competition") they will feel like they need to work up until competition in order to keep up.

Personally, I want to be a team that builds two robots or continues to work up until competition if SBD were removed. We don't currently, but I want to start taking this step so that we can be more successful. I can easily many lower resource teams seriously fearing that pressure to "extend their build season".

And yes, a team can choose to only work the 6 weeks and then stop until competition . . . but how many teams currently artificially limit their seasons like this? I'm sure there are a few, but I can't imagine more than a few limiting themselves to 6 weeks if SBD is removed. The work will expand to fill the time.

Removing SBD will mean less work for teams that build a second robot (they can focus their efforts on one robot if they want), but more work on lower resource teams who only build one robot.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Monochron

Removing SBD will put undue pressure on teams who do not currently work past SBD. If it is removed, then (because "everyone else works up until competition") they will feel like they need to work up until competition in order to keep up.

By not building two robots and working until competition, you're already not keeping up.

[asid61]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

By not building two robots and working until competition, you're already not keeping up.

I think it's a magnitude issue, not just keeping up or not keeping up.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

By not building two robots and working until competition, you're already not keeping up.

Not keeping up with who? Most teams at the regionals I've been to don't build two robots. Some do, but most (more than half) do not. My team has won in two separate years, as alliance captain, without ever building a second robot. Is winning a regional occasionally not keeping up?

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Monochron

Removing SBD will put undue pressure on teams who do not currently work past SBD. If it is removed, then (because "everyone else works up until competition") they will feel like they need to work up until competition in order to keep up.

I'm having a tough time with this logic. If the teams who do not work past SBD are ok not working in the current system, where they can utilize withholding, unbags, or building additional robots - how does removing the stop bag put more pressure on them? Theyre already making a choice to not work on the robot through these avenues...

Originally Posted by Monochron

Removing SBD will mean less work for teams that build a second robot (they can focus their efforts on one robot if they want), but more work on lower resource teams who only build one robot.

On your second point in red, think about it this way. If these teams already build two robots, they already have access to all the 'awesomeness' that comes from not working around a bag. Opening the rules makes this activity simply less wasteful. The teams that build just one robot would have to work less hard to achieve the same level of on-field performance than they currently do.

It's almost as if you're saying teams who WANT to have access to their robot outside of a bag (teams who build two robots) should have a handicap (build a second robot) so the rest of the competition who is content with their current performance doesn't have to feel bad about not working as hard.

-Brando

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Not keeping up with who? Most teams at the regionals I've been to don't build two robots. Some do, but most (more than half) do not. My team has won in two separate years, as alliance captain, without ever building a second robot. Is winning a regional occasionally not keeping up?

There are different definitions on how individuals describe success. Regionals and districts are very dependent on other teams in the area and how they perform compared to other regions.

For example, if you go to a NorCal Regional there are lot of well performing teams there with tons of experience from their 2 robots, hence teams who do not build 2 robots are at a disadvantage and that is shown through rankings and who ends up winning events.

When you take a look at your regionals the caliber is much lower, hence game play is lower and one robot can make it to the top.

A great fair threshold is how these teams perform at champs and who ends up in the top of their division and on Einstein. A large majority of those teams build 2nd robots and do not "stop" their build season once 6 weeks are over. Iterative design is how you become the best.

So I'd have to agree with Adam. You are not keeping up if you want to be the best of the best at a worldwide scale unless you do not stop working until comp with 2 robots (or more).

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Not keeping up with who? Most teams at the regionals I've been to don't build two robots. Some do, but most (more than half) do not. My team has won in two separate years, as alliance captain, without ever building a second robot. Is winning a regional occasionally not keeping up?

"Keeping up" is a relative term, best held in the eyes of the beholder. Building two robots to be a competitive program may be a requirement for some of the thousands of teams in areas that have events not in Minnesota. Maybe they want to be competitive on a level outside of their state? Maybe they define keeping up as consistently making it to eliminations? Maybe they define it as their mentors not needing to go on blood pressure medication mid season? I don't know, sounds like a good survey question.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

So I'd have to agree with Adam. You are not keeping up if you want to be the best of the best at a worldwide scale unless you do not stop working until comp with 2 robots (or more).

For the vast majority of FRC participants, being the best of the best at a worldwide scale is not in their vocabulary. Using the rationale of the very top echelon in terms of on-field success is not a representative sample for the FRC population as a whole. What it takes to "keep up" with these teams should not be a primary driving factor in determining what is the healthiest decision for the entire FRC team base.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

So I'd have to agree with Adam. You are not keeping up if you want to be the best of the best at a worldwide scale unless you do not stop working until comp with 2 robots (or more).

And that right there was my whole point. There are over 3000 teams in FIRST. Do we expect ALL of them to build two robots in order to try to "keep up" with, as you put it, the best of the best? You say a "fair" threshold is Einstein? That was only 32 teams this past year - the top 1% of FRC. I don't really call that a fair threshold of "keeping up". that's saying that 99% of teams failed to "keep up". What you're suggesting is essentially an arms race that would lead to every team trying to one-up each other every year, to put in more time and more effort than the previous year. I'm sorry, but that's not the FIRST I know, and it's not a FIRST that I really want to participate in.

Does anyone actually have any data that shows how many FRC teams build two robots currently? Or any data that breaks out every team's schedule before and after SBD? Because a lot of people are making statements that imply that they do.

I know a TON of teams that don't build second robots, and don't participate on CD, but are still very successful within their definition of success. But a lot of the posts on here, quite frankly, make it sound like people look down on those teams, see them as somehow less than other teams and needing a change in the rules in order to "improve" to where other teams are. Is it not enough to acknowledge that these teams are inspiring students, having fun, and leave it at that?