paper: Stop the Stop Build

[marshall]

Originally Posted by chapman1

Yep. I get it that many teams build two robots to get around the time limit. I get it that many will show up with 29.9 lbs. of improvements at every competition.

Did you take more than 10 seconds to actually consider my points and perspective?

I have in fact. I have taken over ten years to consider my own perspective on the inevitable death of stop build day. I think Jim's paper does a great job of explaining all of the ways the system is currently broken and the compromised solution he lays out is more than acceptable to me. Your response did not lay out a structured argument to refute his claims but yet runs contrary to them, which is why I asked the question that I did. It wasn't meant as an insult though I see now how it could have been misconstrued as one.

[FarmerJohn]

Originally Posted by chapman1

Yep. I get it that many teams build two robots to get around the time limit. I get it that many will show up with 29.9 lbs. of improvements at every competition.

Did you take more than 10 seconds to actually consider my points and perspective?

The reality is this: Teams who have the means to do so will work up until the last minute possible every time. These teams will likely be more competitive than those who stop working before the competition. That is a fact of life.

All eliminating stop build does is provide teams who didn't previously have the means to keep working up until the last minute possible the means to do so. This will not require anyone work more than they want to, but instead gives them the *choice* to do so, a choice many would not have otherwise. The top teams are still going to be the top teams. It may move some lower end teams up, but at the end of the day a non-top team isn't going to fare any worse on their own than they would have with stop build. This does not make it worse for teams who don't want to work more, it only opens up the opportunity to do so to teams who didn't have that opportunity before.

And before someone says "if we don't work more we'll get left behind while everyone else gets better", congrats, that's part of life. This is a competition. If you don't care about being competitive, great. Good for you. You don't need to work any longer than you'd like to. If your argument is that you won't have the means to work longer, but you still wanna be competitive, join FTC. Or VEX. Or any other competition. FRC isn't the end-all be-all best robotics program for everyone, but it is a program with a lot of potential for those who are willing and able to put in the work. The program shouldn't be limited just because of a few who would benefit more by being in another program.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

... This is a competition. ...

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't an on-the-field competition.
FRC *includes* an on-the-field competition.

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by gblake

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't a competition.
FRC *includes* a competition.

I beg to disagree.
*FRC* is a competition.
*FIRST* includes a competition (FRC).


There may be methods to pursue the FIRST mission that do not include a competition.
However, the method FRC chose does include a competition.
It's in the name.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by gblake

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't an on-the-field competition.
FRC *includes* an on-the-field competition.

I know what you're trying to say, but I think this is a bit pedantic and derailing. We are discussing a change to the rules of the robotics competition, so we are of course focused on the impact this competition rules change has to the robotics competition.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I know what you're trying to say, but I think this is a bit pedantic and derailing. We are discussing a change to the rules of the robotics competition, so we are of course focused on the impact this competition rules change has to the robotics competition.

Another point of view would be that a discussion that doesn't include the competition's place in the bigger picture, is a discussion likely to include mistakes.

The post I replied to appeared to tell someone introducing a bit of the bigger picture, that anything less than single-mindedly dedicating a team to winning FRC's competition is a mistake.

I think we can be confident FIRST HQ has an eye on the bigger picture that includes FIRST's primary mission, *and* on the health of the important competition that supports that primary mission.

Why not ensure both are emphasized in this conversation? I'm guessing that FIRST HQ and CD will find the result more persuasive than they would otherwise.

If I was derailing, please give me credit for trying to derail us onto a set of tracks that takes us to our destination, not past it.

Blake

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by gblake

...that anything less than single-mindedly dedicating a team to winning FRC's competition is a mistake.

...

If I was derailing, please give me credit for trying to derail us onto a set of tracks that takes us to our destination, not past it.

Blake

[Jared Russell]

Originally Posted by chapman1

Our team has only a handful of mentors, and all are actively employed. Some have to take vacation time in order to attend after-school work sessions or to participate in weekday events.

Wouldn't extending build season to include several more weekends be to your benefit? I won't pretend to know how your team operates, but I can tell you about our experience last season. Virtually all of our mentors work in the Silicon Valley tech industry, have to commute to the school for robotics, and a growing number of us are starting families - we know all about the time commitments that mentors face.

After years of 7 day weeks and long nights, 254 finally switched to a time-boxed* evening and weekend schedule last season, and as far as I'm concerned there's no turning back. It gives students time to do homework, mentors days off to work and be with family, and everyone the precious sleep they need. When we made this switch, we realized how ~40% of the time we were spending at build while exhausted and frustrated was wasted, and that a more spread-out schedule allows everyone to catch their breath, parts to arrive, and work sessions to be more focused.

Things were a lot better this season, but there's still room for improvement.

* the final week before competition is always an exception...

Originally Posted by chapman1

Further, when the competition season finally ends, we have to spend the next several months catching up with our personal and professional lives. Extending the build season would make it nearly impossible for us to ever catch up.

I've participated in FRC for more than half my life on a couple of teams, as a student and as a mentor. The years where I was most disciplined about how much time I spent through the season were the most rewarding for me, for the students, and were reflected in the on- and off-field successes of the team. I know it's easy to get pot committed and suddenly end up in your build space every afternoon, but you gotta stay disciplined. It's a lot more sustainable to not fall behind than it is to have to play catch up. Many of the restrictions of stop-build day make this harder than it needs to be.

Since you've pretty well established that you are near the "5" end of the survey spectrum, I was wondering: What do you think of the proposal that all teams receive a limited (~4-6 hour) unbagging window during each week of the competition season?

[Mark McLeod]

The argument that every team should be like 254 is weak...
Hubris is blinding.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

The argument that every team should be like 254 is weak...
Hubris is blinding.

The conscious decision to restrict your own build schedule and to practice discipline with meeting times is advice that works for all levels of teams. 2791 started doing this in 2013, just as they became a consistently competitive team, and it has been a huge benefit for the team and all of its members.

I agree with your point in general, that often teams don't have a good picture of other team's situations when giving advice, but I genuinely think reducing meeting times and being strategic about it is actually in the long term a competitive advantage and a great piece of advice for all levels. Team member burnout is a constraint and resource to manage, just like any other.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I agree with your point in general, that often teams don't have a good picture of other team's situations when giving advice, but I genuinely think reducing meeting times and being strategic about it is actually in the long term a competitive advantage and a great piece of advice for all levels. Team member burnout is a constraint and resource to manage, just like any other.

The hubris is making the assumption that other teams haven't already thought of and dealt with this. Every team has already decided how they are going to schedule their meeting times.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

The hubris is making the assumption that other teams haven't already thought of and dealt with this. Every team has already decided how they are going to schedule their meeting times.

I have to disagree that every team has dealt with this. We've been doing yearly FRC workshops in NC for a while now. One of the perennial topics among mentors is always build season schedules. There are a lot of teams that want to optimize what they are doing in this area and it is a continuing area of interest. I'm not going to say what Jared has laid out above for 254 is the perfect example or that it works for everyone but the topic is relevant for a large number of teams and it seems like there are a lot that haven't figured it out yet based on the discussions that I've heard yearly now for the past 5 or 6 years.

Somewhat related, we're cutting back our hours this year as well due to burnout and exhaustion. It's not a huge cut but it will give the students and mentors some of their weekend hours back.

[nobrakes8]

Originally Posted by marshall

Did you read Jim's paper at least?

I think the point over mentor burnout is a big point that Jim's paper kind of ignored but semi-addressed with the 8 hour open bag time per week; which is something I think I'd support.

The one thing I was unclear on is what is the purpose behind FIRST considering this? Is it because the stop build is almost artificial anyway because of how many teams have a second robot and/or use a ton of time with the weight withholding? If that's the driving force behind it then I think Jim's solution is pretty solid.

I feel like if it's to increase competitiveness of the events then it's probably not the right solution. I think the solution needs to be two-fold. First, somehow as a community we need to find a solution to improve competitiveness of the lower to mid-tier teams that struggle (maybe a strong eMentoring program or something). Then, I think FRC needs to look at historical performance of teams and maybe put restrictions on teams that win 80-90% of their regionals/districts (maybe only allow a 100lb robot and limit motors, sensors or envelop size compared to the rest of the teams). But, I don't see the point penalizing the historically successful teams without doing something to improve the struggling teams; because that'll just lower the overall quality of the events.

[jman4747]

So it seems one disagreement we have lies with the question of whether or not meeting more often over a short period of time is more stressful than meeting less often over a longer period of time.

I would assume most people who want to keep the bag beleve the latter is more stressful?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by nobrakes8

Then, I think FRC needs to look at historical performance of teams and maybe put restrictions on teams that win 80-90% of their regionals/districts (maybe only allow a 100lb robot and limit motors, sensors or envelop size compared to the rest of the teams).

Kinda cherry picking with the quote but this will definitely create two different classifications for teams. I'm torn on the idea of different classes for teams within FRC... part of me thinks it could be a good thing but part of me also thinks it's going to create unforeseen problems worse than the championshplit.

Originally Posted by jman4747

So it seems one disagreement we have lies with the question of whether or not meeting more often over a short period of time is more stressful than meeting less often over a longer period of time.

This is an interesting observation. All I know is that 9 women can have a baby in a month.