|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
I am starting this thread as a quote from Dave Lavery. The question relates to penalties for things such as building outside of build period, bringing prebuilt items to comp, not declaring costs properly, and any other off field or ethical foul.
What do you feel is appropriate and how should this be enforced? Who who do the enforcing and should there be any limits to the penalties. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
I don't feel that any penalties are necessary because I couldn't imagine that any of the fine teams in this program would even consider such a thing. We don't need all these penalties because everyone knows these actions would be against "the spirit of the game." And if these things really do go on in our world then those teams should be ashamed of themselves and the rest of us should be proud that we are not them. And if you say that is is unfair to the honest people maybe so but remember, they are not cheating you, only themselves.
|
|
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
Just to bring everyone up to speed, I am quite interested in any discussion in response to this post
Quote:
-dave |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
Just moving it to the right thread:
If the team performing these actions has more regionals or championship to attend on top of the given regional, they should be barred from receiving any awards or taking apart in the final rounds. Their actions do not merit any positive recognition during that competition year or perhaps the next also; however, they should be allowed to at least participate in the qualifying rounds so that the individuals not involved in these violations will not become punished and the students may become inspired by watching the rounds. I also feel that FIRST should explain in writing to the team that is such an action was to be performed by them again, they would not be able to participate in any FIRST competition in the future. |
|
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
Personally I think, FIRST is all year around. I like to work with designs and prototypes through out the whole year. The veteran teams always gets the chance to work on something since they all know what the previous games has been. they make prototypes, student comes up with crazy cool stuff, for example, Tkwetzel chopper (very nice work). Every month when i go through the picture galleries on Chiefdelphi, i find bunch of inventor/cad work that are done by mentors, students which is awesome.
I dont think there is anything wrong working with designs and making prototypes, As long as you make new parts and a whole new robot during those 6 weeks of build season. I look at it this way, A singer always sings to get his/her voice better, a football team always practices to get better, so what is wrong with a FIRST team practicing making new designs and building them. Aren't the students in FIRST getting inspired and aren't they all learning something. The past 3 years that i have been in FIRST, i have learned a lot (it does include all the 3 season's 18 weeks but other than those 6 weeks in each season, i have done other projects to keep myself busy throughout the year.) i just think its wrong, if teams are allowed to use parts at the competition, which they built before the season. How should it be enforeced? well, i am not sure how we can tell, what team has built what before the season, that is where Honesty comes in play. Edit- (thanks to jaine for pointing this out). If you want to penalize a team for making parts and using them on the robot (which was build before season), Wouldn't you have to find out what they have built and what they are using? how would you do that? isnt that where the honestly will come in play? and if there was a way to find out what a team has done, and if they have broken the rules, i think they should be penalize for the particular season (not compete). -Arefin. Last edited by Arefin Bari : 28-12-2004 at 23:22. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
At least in the regional (or championship) events, this is the way I see it. Each team is a show, a performance with all the other teams as the audience. It is the implied duty of each show to impress it's audience (both on and off the field) and that they do because the hosts of the show do not want any tomatoes thrown.
|
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
Considering the "rules" get muddy every year when all the lawyers break into full swing, usually because they hadn't been thought through enough for 1000's of people to poke holes in. It gets very easy to find yourself somewhere you shouldn't be. Also with the on the fly Q&A board developing things independent of the original documentation again you find yourself with justifiable circumstances in soooo many Grey's. I just don't think FIRST has covered itself well in the past. I've been guilty of treading uncertain ground because frankly I didn't "know" what the rules were. So in that respect I can't see hanging a whole team because someone goofed, or even made a bad or wrong decision. I would think like Sandrag said, we're dealing with a good element of folks. The better side of people will prevail in all this, along with a conscience. After you have companies investing some big bucks into this endeavor only to find someone threw wrench in the works and caused the donation to be void. I think that would be a HUGE mistake on FIRST's part. I do think the rules need teeth, but definitely go light on the team as a whole. I could go along with playing Dave's favorite albums or something, also making public announcements, like "so and so did this and we informed them of the infraction, please do not make this mistake". I dunno...
|
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
First Offense:
Found during seeding rounds:
|
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
I was thinking of a situation. Lets suppose that Team X has a bot and their arm mechanism which weighs a lot goes haywire and keeps breaking on the field. Lets say in match 123 they finally hang successfully and they're all happy about it. When they try to get their robot off the bar it breaks and falls on one of the kids/referees/someone around and breaks their head. I feel in a situation as such the teams should be allowed to work on their robot in the hotels or so because more than anything else this means safety. We are not at a corporate level thing as yet, and shouldn't fear penalties for such things. Since we are high school kids I think we should be allowed for situations like above.
However, to level the playing field, I don't think its ok to work on the robot after the ship date. For a penalty I would suggest not letting them participate in a few rounds rather than just stop them from going to a regional. I say this because maybe not all the kids on the team were for it and the other half of the team were filled with junk heads and evil minds who could only care about winning a competition(If you just wanted to play, enjoy and learn then I am sure you wouldn't go crazy and build past the 6 weeks). And then, I think the embarrassment that they've violated a rule is by itself a punishment. I also think they should be punished or such only if the rules state so clearly. If you have the resources, then its good to practice and experiment making new parts. And if its something good, you can use it on the robot(of course re-make it at the competition, but now since you have it drawn and stuff and you know how to make it it should not be a hard to make it). By making new parts and experimenting with parts kids on the team learn more and in turn inspires them more, which is the goal of FIRST. |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
I must say that I agree with Meli. I don't think these teams should be able to receive any acknowledgment from FIRST and competition sponsors. I must also like to add that I think the teams should be put on "probation." This probation includes consequences like limiting the number of competitions they may attends, and prohibiting them from attending nationals. In order to have this probation lifted, these teams must submit an "application," which is basically a formal apology and insurance against future illegal actions.
I have a few problems with my own thoughts though: - We cannot take away the experience of the students. It is vital that we don't limit their exposure to robotics and the experience they would have that would be threatened by probation. Because honestly, in my opinion, most infringement on these rules was cause not because the students decided to break the rules knowledgeably, but either they didn't know the rules, or the mentors and engineers on their team committed the offense. - I know I sound like I am trying to blame this on the adults, and I am not, I have the greatest respect for these individuals that not only have full time jobs, but also give up their entire life for six weeks just to help some students realize their purpose in life. - Probation just sounds dirty, like we are making black marks in the record of a otherwise great team. There will never be a good way of handling rule breakers, but we must come to a consensus on the "best way", and that way will never be perfect. Last edited by Ben Lauer : 29-12-2004 at 00:06. Reason: wrong word used |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
Quote:
I think that the degree of the penalty should correlate to the degree of the infraction. I also think that FIRST should implement a rule system that allows for teams to fix what they have done wrong, depending on the infraction. I think that teams should be given more than one chance to rectify their behavior. The team might not have known that they were in violation of the rules, and it would be unfair to punish then too severely for something that they might not have even known about. This should be applicable to most infractions. For example, if a team builds a part that is illegal and uses it in a match, I think they should have the chance to remove the illegal part and receive a minor penalty. However, if they were discovered to be using the illegal part again, then they should receive a larger punishment, such as disqualification. Giving people a chance to recognize that their actions were unacceptable …and then letting them graciously fix their mistakes… will teach a better lesson than enforcing a more severe punishment. If a team were to be DQed right away after making a mistake, they would walk away feeling frustrated and resentful, and way less open to changing their attitude about the competition. And an aside on honesty: Arefin brings up a very good point here: Quote:
Hearsay is not acceptable in competition. I think that as long as human nature exists, there will always be dishonesty. I think that FIRST should do the best it can to prevent this, however, there is a limit to exactly how nitpicky FIRST will be. I think it is ludicrous to attempt to mete perfect justice to all competitors. However, it is important that we try our best. -- Jaine |
|
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
I've been stewing on this for a while, so first I figure some questions should be asked. I came up with a few parameters for these solutions...
For robot problems (costs, time, locations): a) Can the team redo or reassemble it at the competition (thus making it legal)? If so, fix it. If not, go on. b) Can anything be changed to bring the robot into compliance? If so, do it. Otherwise, move on. c) If there is no way that the robot can be brought into compliance, is the robot otherwise legal to compete? If so (and nobody objects), let it onto the field, but disqualify it each match, and bar it from the finals. (This avoids giving the other alliance member(s) that team would compete with the short end of the stick, and it allows the team to at least have some measure of the experience). Otherwise, move on. d) If the robot isn't otherwise legal, bring it into compliance. And if that still gets you nowhere... e) Start building from scratch. 1396's One-Day Wonder took ten hours. For people problems (bad sportsmanship, sabotage, etc.): a) Is it one or more people acting independently of the team, or the team? For non-team units: b) Prevent the person(s) from doing more harm. c) Contact a teacher or other leader of the team, and make sure they know about it. Teams have handbooks, districts have behavior codes. I believe that 99% of the time, one will deal with the person(s). Assuming that everyone concerned is satisfied, move on. d) If this person happens to be in that 1%, sit them in the stands and have a responsible adult keep an eye on them. They stay there except for food, bathroom, and going home/to the hotel. For teams: b) Can the problem be rectified? Fix it, with apologies. c) Will allowing the team to continue to compete, even while disqualified, cause further harm to teams or other individuals? If not, let them keep going. If it will, read on. d) If nothing can be done but bar the entire team from continuing, then bar them. Recruit teams to compete as placebos. Note that I'm not going to comment on awards. These judges are smart people; they can tell whether a team is deserving or not of an award for whatever reason. I'll defer to them. Last edited by Billfred : 29-12-2004 at 00:21. |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
Since I started the thread I guess that I should contribute. Mike has some good ideas. What I would like to see is a form signed before each competition that states that the team has conformed to all of the build rules and the spirit of FIRST. The form should also state that the team will continue to follow the rules through out the competition weekend. If the team is found to be in violation of the rules that the lead mentor (the one that signs the form) must meet with the competition organizers and address the violation. At that time the organizers can follow Mikes suggestions or another result could be that the lead mentor can be given a 1 week - 3 year expulsion from FIRST.
Why would I do that to the lead mentor? He/She is to be in control of their team. They should also make sure that the members and the mentors follow the rules. The person at the top is responsible for the actions of their team. It may seem harsh but as has been said, Why should the whole team suffer. |
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
A penalty of this kind is very hard to make and it would probably have to be one of the harshest penalties in FIRST.
If you bar a team from a years worth of competition, this would be the exact opposite some of the principles of FIRST. The team might lose their sponsorship, and the kids would leave the team since they would not be inspired of the FIRST competition. An appropriate penalty would be disqualifying the team from that particular event. This would only be blocking the team’s robot from competing from the event and they could still be inspired by the action of the competition. They would be ranked at that competition as dead last with a record of no rounds completed at all. Though the awards that do not relate to how the robot competes, i.e. the website and animation awards, should be allowed to compete for an award. This would still give the team some pride in what they have accomplished and keeping them inspired in FIRST. This team should then be allowed to attend any other competitions if they want to. During these competitions they should be kept under close watch so they do not break the rule again. If they do so, then they should be banned for the rest of the season and receiving absolutely no awards for that competition. They then would be given a “Homework Assignment” of reflecting on what they did wrong and what they should not do next year. I would really hate to see this happen to any team, even knowing what they did wrong. FIRST should also focus on prevention of this happening by making a stricter inspection at the robot check in and FIRST officials sealing the pits off at the end of the day so only people can get out without any robot parts with them. |
|
#15
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations
I was under the impression that FIRST acts in response to situations wherein rules not related to gameplay are violated at its sole discretion. However, my perspective may be erroneous as the team involved in my experience with such matters was not being deceptive and given every opportunity to make necessary corrections. FIRST's action was to their benefit, ultimately.
I can think more about a specific system for dealing with rule transgressions, but I can't help but wonder if this is really a problem worth worrying over. If it is, I think that such behavior is probably a symptom of a larger problem in the organization than the root problem itself. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Vetting and Idea: Modular Field Design... | Justin | General Forum | 19 | 16-06-2004 15:46 |
| Team Reps on the Field | Ken Loyd | General Forum | 7 | 09-05-2004 08:12 |
| What is the true field infrared emitter? | scottm87 | Programming | 4 | 20-04-2004 18:22 |
| Mobile/immobile objects on field | Steve782 | Rumor Mill | 12 | 08-01-2004 04:15 |
| What happens / why do motors stall? | DanL | Technical Discussion | 19 | 21-11-2002 07:19 |