|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
im not particuarly for or against this topic. This is new territory in FIRST, and should be treated that way: a new and developing idea that has not had enough time yet to prove its effectiveness/diseffectiveness. It could turn out these 2 teams rule the game this year. Or, it could turn out neither do good because of a design flaw, and arent picked for finals by other teams just for the fact that they worked together (therefore cutting the work in half?) This is probably a unlikely situtation, but just for the record (this has nothing to do with this thread):
If you are in the position to pick teams for finals, pick them by who will bring the most to the table in your alliance, not their teams repuatation of being good or how much they tried selling themselves to you. |
|
#122
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: a few more facts
Quote:
|
|
#123
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Not to sound critical or mean or insulting, but 123 posts in 2 days? Am I the only one that sees this as beating a dead horse? I think possibly every scenario has been covered, and no offense to anyone, but I personally don't think there's anything that needs to be said on this topic.
|
|
#124
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Quote:
![]() |
|
#125
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
who was the guy in the patent office that wanted to close it down, something like a hundred years ago, because he thought all the possible new inventions had already been thought of?
there are over 900 teams this year, with a total of how many people? 20,000? 30,000? This is a real difficult subject here - a real can of worms. Its going to be hard for all the teams to figure out how they feel about this - and I can understand people wanting to close the door here and end the discussion. But that will only push the confusion and hurt feelings off the forum, where people wont be able to talk openly about them, and then they will fester until the regionals start. |
|
#126
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
I apoligize for what I said earlier. I'm just a person that feels a topic can be discussed so many times before it starts to lose meaning. Many people on here may disagree with me about that, and they're welcome to, it's there opinions. I just want to apoligize if I offended anyone on my thread. I am sincerely sorry.
Also, this year, there is a total of 1497 teams registered. That means that given a team has 15-20 members (rough estimate), that gives us 22,455 to 29,940 give or take opinions. Last edited by pras870 : 17-02-2004 at 15:14. |
|
#127
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
this is way off the subject, but who has asked first about this situation, I've searched the q+a section multiple times, but I can't find the question. can anyone conferm that the question has actually been asked? or are we all waiting for FIRST to take the initiative?
Last edited by crazykid234 : 17-02-2004 at 15:39. Reason: spelling |
|
#128
|
||||
|
||||
|
As far as I know, neither team 254 nor team 60 has asked FIRST about the legality of our collaboration. Since I would probably be the one to do that for my team, I know we have not done so. If another team has asked, I have not heard about it.
We obviously think that we have not violated any rules in letter or spirit. Some people disagree with us. We'll see what FIRST officially says. |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Kingman has not asked the question we also do not believe it needed to be asked. This subject has obviously never come up before so I'm sure no one has asked the question.
If someone feels it necessary to ask the question, ask FIRST the question. 90% of the work done by Kingman on the (4) robots was done by students and the mentors. Laron only helped on a small portion of the welding no machining. We also had two other machine shops in Kingman (Brackett Aircraft and I-Corp Arizona) make some parts both companies donated the time and materials and work directly with our students to help inspire them. I-Corp is a direct competitor to Laron (how is that for cooperation). If anyone feels we are breaking the rules then ask what ever question you want neither Kingman nor the Cheesy Poofs have anything to hide. We would like to show you exactly how we did it. Even if you don't agree you may learn something, and in the process I know we can learn from you. |
|
#130
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
i just wonder why it had to be two profound teams collaberting... its like kicking a man when he's down. it wouldnt be so bad if you helped an under-resourced team, but another established team? cmon, a little biased eh?
|
|
#131
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
One thing I really enjoy about this discussion is how it has really brought our two teams closer together. a unique bond is formed when a large number of people challenging us. Thanks! Thanks also to those who have supported our effort to expand the meaning of FIRST's coopertition. We appreciate your support.
Last edited by Matt D : 17-02-2004 at 19:49. |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
After reading this thread I can honestly say I'm more concerned with the unprofessinal comments coming from mentors and engineers that the actual subject matter of this discussion....You know who you are...comments like "But please stop and consider that there are a lot of us out here who do not copy everything you do, who are not following in your wake saying thankyouthankyouthankyou we could not do this without you"
Just what was this sarcastic comment trying to acheive? No one is forcing anything on any team. Run your team as you choose. Teams 254 and 60 have. I certainly hope you have not "inspired" your students to follow with this attitude. The comment about this collaboration resulting on students cheating on HS and college assignments.. Please, I think its an insult to FIRST students to imply they don't know difference between cheating on your homework or exams and collaborating on a project. I thought 'teamwork" is one if the building blocks of FIRST. The comment regarding FIRST not being about making machinists and welders... Do you think these are somehow "bad" professions? Think before you post. As for companies in the real world working together on the same product/project etc.. They do it all time. Check out www.unitedspacealliance.com. Two biggies who have obviously figured out the working together yields better results than working alone. As for companies "going to market with the same product" and diminishing the "competitive nature". Again, think before you post. There is a whole market out there that is just this, its called generics. Generic drugs, foods, etc... And trust me, this market prompts alot of competition. But you know,this really doesn apply to this thread. The point I am tyring to make is that before you go off and say the "sky is falling" please do so in a rational, thought out manner with at least some evidence to justify yourself. Please remember your posts here reflect on your entire team, like it or not.So think first , think again and then post. |
|
#133
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Quote:
FIRST teams did not invent multi speed transmissions, multi motor drive systems, or shift on the fly drivetrains - I had a shift on the fly multispeed bicycle back in 1967 The POINT I was trying to make is that, just because your team has done very well in the past, or has raised the bar, or published white papers on all the neat stuff you have used, that doesnt make it ok for you to bend the rules, or to come up with clever ways that give you an unfair advantage over other teams this year. Last edited by Amanda Morrison : 17-02-2004 at 19:49. Reason: personal comments should be left in PM's. |
|
#134
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Quote:
I am concerned with the rules of the competition that relate directly and unambiguously to the situation described by Glenn in the quote above and in the previous posts by team 60 and team 254 members. The rules clearly state that work done on the robot by non-team members must be billed against the $3500 limit, whether that work was donated, bought, or bartered. The situation at hand is that roughly half of team 60's robot was built by people who are not members of team 60, and roughly half of team 254's robot was built by people who are not members of team 254. If both teams have billed every thing according to the rules, and both teams' robots are not in violation of the $3500 rule (and the $400 rule), then there is no problem with what they've done. In fact, if that is the case they've made an amazing accomplishment. On the other hand, if they are not billing non-team labor against their $3500 budget, or if they are billing it and exceed $3500 / $400 for the robot / individual part, then they are clearly in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the rules. I believe that their alliance affords both teams a significant competitive advangage vs. every other team that designed and built their whole robot with only the resources that their team had secured. I believe the $3500 rule is in place to limit exactly this kind of imbalance. The only grey area that exists with respect to the rules is the notion of one or more persons having dual team affiliation. To my knowledge there is no provision for such dual team membership in any official FIRST document. Likewise, I know of no official FIRST document which forbids dual team membership. This is something that I believe should have been cleared up before kickoff, or ASAP thereafter. |
|
#135
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Robot Collaboration
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|