Appropriate penalties for off-the-field ethical/behavioral violations

[Ted Boucher]

Originally Posted by Arefin Bari

We all have been saying what the penalties might be for the cheaters and also what is our opinion in general. now lets state the problem...

"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." - Steve W.

few respective members said that we should penalize teams, and few other respective members said that we should just let it go, because we dont want to lose teams. most of us said that FIRST should be enforcing these and few said that there should be limits (they posted the limits that we should have). (PLEASE correct me if i am wrong).

Here is a question for all of you (it was mentioned before, but i didnt see any response)..

"How would you know if a team is cheating? and if you do know, how would you prove it?"

as I mentioned earlier in my other post, that is when "Honesty" comes into play.

-Arefin

For pre-fabricating parts before 6 weeks beings:

Honestly, I don’t think that there is any way for a FIRST official to judge this at a competition with the current rules. Unless someone for their team turned them in, which it very unlikely. What FIRST could do is have each FIRST team submit time stamped pictures of the build process of all of their major components. This way you would know when the parts was made and assembled to a limited point. If you make these pictures required to every event, then it would be a way of showing that the team did not cheat. If the dates are wrong, then we would know that they cheated. Another thing FIRST could do is making changes the KOP every year, to a point so that a team would be unable to pre-fabricate parts.

For fixing robot parts at an official FIRST Robotics Event at a hotel or such:

As I said earlier, just by watching the pits and make sure only people are leaving and entering is the simple and easy solution to the anwser. This ensures that you are not letting a team bring parts in and out of the competition that were done off building time or competition time. There would be no need for a penalty phase and everyone would be on a fair playing field. You could even seal the pit with tape after a team leaves at night. Then in the morning, a judge could make sure that they are not bringing any parts in with them and unseal the pit.

[Swampdude]

Originally Posted by Ben Lauer

I think we are straying from the purpose of the thread.

We were asked to discuss different penalties for teams caught breaking the off field rules. Assuming that we can catch these violations, What should the consequences be? Consider what others have said about probation, restricting envolvement in finals, etc. Do you agree with this? Disagree? and what would you like to suggest.

I understand your point, but general psychology says to treat the cause not the symptoms. We are dealing with people here? I don't like the idea of waving the gavel. The FIRST ideal is wonderful in respect to the fact that we make the best or worst of it. I'm sorry to say that business isn't free of cheats and loopholers - far from it. But I think if we put obstacles in the path of the would be cheaters, they're going to think twice before taking that risk that wasn't there before. Hence avoiding this whole punishment thing. It's not like your going to correct deviant behaviour with this program, nor should it be about that. Just like our society says, "it's the parents fault". I agree with that, it's up to parents to keep their kids from drugs and all the bad stuff. I don't want the government raising my kids - it just doesn't work. In the same regards let the mentors handle it, and when they screw up, then yes think up something - but don't go whacking a team at the knees over this stuff, it's not worth it. I guess my point is, fix the source issues first - if that doesn't curb the infractions, then go easy on the punishments, it's related...

[Steve W]

To believe that this isn't happening is hiding your head in the sand. Things have been caught and when brought forward, FIRST hid their head in the sand. In 2002 and 2003 there were teams that broke the rules and when confronted argued the point so tough that FIRST allowed the transgression. THIS is one of the worst things that could have happened. FIRST is basically not enforcing the rules because, in my humble opinion, they don't want to discourage teams or ban them from a competition. All this has done is lower the GP for everyone.

I am not saying that everyone cheats but it only takes one or two to go unpunished and then we start the slippery slide. We need to find appropriate penalties that will curb any other thoughts on the issue.

[Billfred]

I'm still curious, is a punishment the way to go?

As far as I've heard, the world of work goes like this: I give someone a list of requirements for my super-special tin can. If their cans are out of whack, do I charge them fifty bucks and tell them to go home?

Nope. I don't buy their cans (or, in FIRST, let them onto the field) until their cans meet my requirements. Then I buy them.

(this is, of course, I have one source for such a tin can...you know what I mean)

I still think the solution that leaves the most room for teachable moments and the least room for hurt feelings is to identify the problem, then fix the problem (even if it means starting a new robot--it has been done), then move along.

[jimfortytwo]

One fear I have is that by codifying punishments for things that simply should_not_happen, you might in effect make them part of the game. In many sports, for instance (I play lacrosse), penalties are assumed to be part of the game, and calculated risk is part of the strategy. No one wants to see first head down that path. I think that if punishments are spelled out at all they should be brief and simple, and give discretion to the event supervisors. I don't personally see a need for further regulations cluttering the books, though. In my experience with FIRST I have never encountered a situations like this that I didn't feel was properly handled.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Karthik

For years, I've been hearing the story of a team who showed up to inspection with a hollowed out battery. Does anyone know what happened to this team? I'd be interested to see what sort of precedent was set.

This is a story that I've heard for about 4 years now. Since this is more like a rumor than fact, I heard that the team was just repremanded once it was realized that the controller would not turn on. Then they were required to lose weight. That's what I've heard anyway

Originally Posted by Billfred

I'm still curious, is a punishment the way to go?
...
I still think the solution that leaves the most room for teachable moments and the least room for hurt feelings is to identify the problem, then fix the problem (even if it means starting a new robot--it has been done), then move along.

100% ABSOLUTELY, is punishment the way to go. It does no one any good if we find that team 12345 won the Championship illegally and are required to fix a problem on their robot after the fact.

A punishment is meant to deter you from doing an illegal act. A team is a team- if they cheat together, they get punished together. We're not talking about executions! Just enough of a punishment so that is acts as a hinderence so people think twice before they knowingly cheat.

Some people are concerned about the cheating team getting too harsh a punishment and wanting to leave FIRST. Ever think about the honest teams in FIRST who might leave because the competition turns into a sham?

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Steve W

To believe that this isn't happening is hiding your head in the sand. Things have been caught and when brought forward, FIRST hid their head in the sand. In 2002 and 2003 there were teams that broke the rules and when confronted argued the point so tough that FIRST allowed the transgression. THIS is one of the worst things that could have happened. FIRST is basically not enforcing the rules because, in my humble opinion, they don't want to discourage teams or ban them from a competition. All this has done is lower the GP for everyone.

Well with expansion does come some unfortunate side effects. Not every company who joins FIRST sees the opportunities provided to youth, the life lessons learned from the experience and the fun everyone involved has.
All they see is trophies and for the amount of money they put into such and such a team they want to see a return for their investment and they could care less how they go about getting it.
FIRST is just not big enough an organization to watchdog every single thing every single team does and if they start tackling who is cheating or not I'm afraid it's going to devolve into what is or isn't cheating (is building a robot strictly for the students or can the robot be mentor built, ect.) and next thing you know FIRST is bogged down in endless debate about the rules and then no one is having fun anymore.
The only answer I can possibly think of is an exclusive team of mentors from each and every team who preside over the rules and regualtions of FIRST and police the teams autonoumous from their own team and other teams influences and thus can pass just decsions on such matters without fear of retaliation.

[Swampdude]

The fear of the unknown is an asset. Let's choose a team number that never existed and start some folklore about the severe punishment that befell them after they did a no no (did they skip 666?). I like how Dave insinuated some drastic abuse (being a FIRST representative). But in reality I think we need to loosen up. If you spell it out, like these guys are saying, your going to get an adverse effect. But I still stand by the fact that you need a system in place to provide immediate resistance to infractions. As soon as people realize there's a "good" possibility they'll get caught (regardless of the punishment) they'll quickly reconsider.

"did you guys hear about that team last year that had to blow up all the balls by mouth? "

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

100% ABSOLUTELY, is punishment the way to go. It does no one any good if we find that team 12345 won the Championship illegally and are required to fix a problem on their robot after the fact.

Alright, touché. Then again, it's not like we could take back a Super Bowl title from a team that somehow cheated, either. Sometimes the bad guys win, and the only thing you can do at that point is make sure it never happens again.

The solution to your problem, Mike, is to keep it from becoming a problem. Inspecting everything would solve the problem, but that takes manpower and time. The easiest, and probably best, way to do it is to work on the honor system...sort of.

Consider back in my elementary school days. I was on an Odyssey of the Mind team. And every year at the competition, every student on the team would have to sign some piece of paper that said my team did not receive any outside assistance from non-team members (which was prohibited under the rules). Surely some sort of document could be fashioned for FIRST, where every team member signs to affirm that they were not party to any cheating. If all else fails, you're teaching an important lesson--read everything you sign!

[Marc P.]

Any team who breaks any rule should be reprimanded. As tough as it is, it's necessary to preserve the integrity of the program as a whole, from team to team, competition to competition, season to season. Now, before I get jumped on for that, I'll say there shouldn't be any "one size fits all" punishment to be handed out whenever anyone cries foul. I'm of the firm belief the punishment should befit the crime.

There are already well documented rules and policies in place regarding on-field competition, and the referee crew does a great job of enforcing and distributing punishments for infractions. For those who don't know, most penalties during a match incur flags to be thrown. The number of flags depends on the offense, and by the 2004 rules, each flag is a 10 point penalty. More severe penalties will merit disqualification and/or disabling of the offending team's robot. Rule G32 in particular showcases perhaps the most severe documented FIRST penalty- disqualification from the remainder of the regional competition and/or championship event.

Realistically, it's only on-field where any potentially cheating team has the highest chance of getting caught. Not only are there well qualified volunteers on the field, but various FIRST officials, Innovation First staff, and any number of eyes which could spy some mechanism or part which is obviously illegal, should a team try to pull a fast one after successfully competing inspection.

Outside of that, the only proof of any other types of cheating would be here-say or testimony of other teams/individuals, which unless accompanied by a significant multi-team backing or documented/photo proof, isn't necessarily viable evidence.

Now, for the real meat. I'd brand any (off field/not otherwise documented) offense as one of three possible categories- minor, major, severe. Examples of minor offenses would be smuggling small/non critical post-ship fabricated parts into competition, working on parts in a hotel room, essentially things generally seen as wrong, but not large enough scale to modify the outcome of the competition. Minor infractions should incur a minor penalty, say 5 or 10% off ranking points, or score, or whatever method of determining rank is.

Major offenses would modify the outcome of a match, but in a rectifiable manor. This would include using known illegal parts post-inspection. If incurred during the qualification rounds, the team would automatically be disqualified from it's next 2 matches, or if in eliminations, automatically dropped from it's 3 team alliance (where the other 2 members can pick another 3rd partner).

Severe infractions I'd rather not think about. They would undeniably affect the outcome of a match, and/or the competition, and would be so devoid of gracious professionalism and of such conduct I personally wouldn't care to see these teams in any future competition for the remainder of the season. Examples would be sabotage of an opposing alliance's robots, stealing parts/tools from other teams, and violence (fighting, excessive verbal abuse).

I know in each scenario there's the chance it may only be a few individuals, and may not necessarily reflect on the team as a whole, but I'll apply the general concept from these forums. People who post here (whether they disclaim it or not) do reflect where they're coming from, and do to an extent, represent their team. If 2 or 3 people smuggle some parts into competition, they're smuggling them on behalf of their team (if they didn't have a team, what would they be doing with parts in a hotel room?). Similarly, if a team member intentionally damages another team's robot, he/she does so as a member of his/her team, and it does reflect on the team as a whole, and as such, the punishment is reflected back.

I know people will say disqualification is not the answer, because it deprives teams of the chance to compete and be inspired and such, but there's no inspiration to be found in cheating. There may be a slight feeling of triumph for a while, taking the ski lift to the top of the mountain while others climb with ice-piks and rope. But there's no better feeling in the world than knowing you did your best, produced an amazing piece of technology, and learned more than you thought possible. All the while watching your growing potential take the field and pick up balls, cap goals, and hang from a bar taller than anyone out there. Shortcuts are just that- short, and I'd feel cheated if my robot won, but I knew it didn't deserve to.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Steve W

To believe that this isn't happening is hiding your head in the sand. Things have been caught and when brought forward, FIRST hid their head in the sand. In 2002 and 2003 there were teams that broke the rules and when confronted argued the point so tough that FIRST allowed the transgression. THIS is one of the worst things that could have happened. FIRST is basically not enforcing the rules because, in my humble opinion, they don't want to discourage teams or ban them from a competition. All this has done is lower the GP for everyone.

Steve,
As I have said before, I am an optimist and as such I believe strongly in GP and it's effects in this competition. Yes I may be hiding my head in the sand. But I can tell you that a team that knowingly cheated would not end up on my list of potential teams to pick for finals. I don't want to speak for the rest of my team, but I think (I would hope) that if a cheating team was in the finals, we would turn them down if asked join their alliance. If we all took that position (an ultimate GP sacrifice) then cheaters would self destruct.
I am not so naive to believe that cheating doesn't take place, anymore than I don't think every boy scout follows the Scout Law everyday. GP and the Scout Law are high ideals that only the best will achieve and live everyday. We must show by example how to conduct our teams in this organization, remember, my grandmother is watching.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Steve,
As I have said before, I am an optimist and as such I believe strongly in GP and it's effects in this competition. Yes I may be hiding my head in the sand. But I can tell you that a team that knowingly cheated would not end up on my list of potential teams to pick for finals. I don't want to speak for the rest of my team, but I think (I would hope) that if a cheating team was in the finals, we would turn them down if asked join their alliance. If we all took that position (an ultimate GP sacrifice) then cheaters would self destruct.
I am not so naive to believe that cheating doesn't take place, anymore than I don't think every boy scout follows the Scout Law everyday. GP and the Scout Law are high ideals that only the best will achieve and live everyday. We must show by example how to conduct our teams in this organization, remember, my grandmother is watching.

The reason that I am in FIRST and believe in it is because it is a great eye opening experience AND because of GP. When I first encountered FIRST I was in the pit area and saw teams working together to help out those with problems. Teams sharing ideas, resources and manpower. A competition were everyone is a winner even when you have no trophies. This is something that drew me here and keeps me here. Does 1 or 2 teams breaking the GP code stop FIRST from being a great place? Not on your life. That doesn't mean that we should stop trying to teach others about all aspects of FIRST, including GP. Rules need to be enforced. There is a saying that I heard long ago that says "Locks keep honest people honest". I believe that the rules are like locks. There are always those that will try to do what is not right. We cannot stop except with rule enforcement. If we have rules (locks) that are not enforced (locked) then why do we bother to have them at all?

This is a great discussion and I believe that much has been brought out already. I see FIRST as moving forward and getting better every year. This can be only done when people care and this thread shows that, even with differing opinions, The people that make up FIRST do care. Boy do I love this program.

[Andrew]

Another possible "punishment" would be to have some respected person at FIRST sit down with a team which has been caught in a major rules violation and explain exactly what GP is, how this team's activities are moving counter to FIRST's mission and goals, and suggest how the team might improve in the future.

1. This would deprive the team of about 1 hour of competition time.
2. You might actually reach some of the team members (if not the team leaders).
3. The fact that the entire team disappeared for an hour would be fairly telling to the rest of the competition.

Another punishment...have the team members write out "I will not cheat again" 100 times and post the documents in a designated "hall of shame" area.

The only down-side to this punishment is that some engineer will design an "auto-pen" and have it do the writing for him.

[Natchez]

If I were queen for the day, the violation process would be

1. Person knowledgeable of a violation would document the violation and turn it into FIRST (FIRST Manchester if not during a regional & Regional Director during a regional).

2. The coach (team leader) from each team would be required to attend a meeting to resolve all alleged violations at 12:00 each day (Thursday, Friday, & Saturday) during the regionals.

3. If a violation could be substantiated, the coaches along with a FIRST official who was very knowledgeable of the rules would hash out a penalty or punishment.

Here are some comments regarding each step.

STEP #1

• Writing down the violation of another team makes one think about exactly what rule is being violated and avoids the half-cocked statements that occur as people "grab the ear" of the regional director.
• We actually implemented something like this at the South Texas FLL tournament with a Comments/Compliments/Concerns Form where people complain about anything from dirty bathrooms to a team breaking robot rules. It has worked very well.
• If the violation occurred outside of a regional and thus the violation write-up is submitted to FIRST Manchester, the alleged violation would be sent to the next regional that the accused team was competing and addressed at the Thursday 12:00 meeting at that regional.
• The accuser should not be anonymous. If someone is willing to accuse, then let them stand in front of the people when judging (figuratively of course). This will eliminate that one person that loves to make a bunch of groundless anonymous accusations.

STEP #2

• Qualified personnel could be used to substantiate certain violations.
• Having meetings everyday would bring a fairly swift resolution to issues and give the regional time to correct the problem instead of having it remain as a black eye on the regional.
• Coaches would despise going to these meetings therefore they would want to keep them as short as possible.
• At the Championships, there would need to be several of these meetings to reduce the number of coaches in the room. Maybe two meetings per division to reduce the number to less than 40 coaches in a room.

STEP #3

• Head coaches would be the most likely to pass out fair and understandable punishments.
• If the coach of the offending team does not agree to the punishment from his peers, the Regional Director would make the final binding decision.
• As more of these meetings were held and documented and discussed, punishments for common violations would become standard around the country.

If implemented correctly, this process can address violations from all aspects of FIRST (Robot, Sportsmanship, Chairman's, etc.). This violation process needs a lot more work but hopefully I've gotten the gist across.

WARNING: This concludes my rational solution to the problem. Now, please allow me to rant a little.

In general, FIRST mirrors society more closely than we'd like to admit. In this post and others, we seem to be lobbing a great deal of "others-break-the-rules" bricks in our "we-don't-break-rules" glass house. I'll spare you from the boredom of my beliefs on society & rules.

Our grandmothers and grandfathers didn't break rules because it was simply wrong, or from a fear of God, and those were the days that agreements could be sealed by a handshake. Today, it is difficult to find someone who does not break rules. In defense of this, see if you can get though the list below without having been a part of at least one "rules" violation. Feel free to flame me and fill up my inbox if you get all the way through the lists; most of all, please brag because you exhibit the highest standards for which FIRST stands.

• Who has been a part of a team that saved seats?
• Who went through a door at the Championships that they knew they should not to save the trouble of going "over the mountain of escalators?"
• Who has brought food and drink into a stadium and knew it was wrong?
• Who has not worn safety glasses in the pits at some point? Remember, safety never takes a break ... neither does flying parts.
• Who has kept working on their robot in the pit after being called to the queuing area for the third time?
• Who has sped to a FIRST practice?

I'm ashamed to say that I’ve been part of ALL of the above rule violations! Now, here are a few other rule violations that I've only witnessed.

• Who has made a robot that damaged/buckled the carpet ... AND DID NOT CORRECT IT?
• Who has repaired their robot in the pits knowing that the repair might have put it over 130 lbs. but chose not to check it and compete in a round.
• Who has gone to the top of Reliant Stadium where they knew they should not be and put paper on the seats?
• Who has made a MINOR modification to a spare part after the ship date and then use it on their competition robot.
• Who has fudged the information on their Chairman’s Award submission or in the interview?
• Who has brought artificial noise makers into a stadium where they were disallowed?

That's enough! Thanks for letting me vent for a few minutes.

May we all strive to break no rules in 2005,
Lucien

[IMDWalrus]

Originally Posted by nparikh

Wow, it seems that this thread is spreading into so many different directions that I don't really know which issue to respond to.

Agreed, especially since I haven't been posting on CD lately. That said, the one question that bothers me the most:

What constitutes an ethical violation?

As we've seen in YMTC threads and many of the posts here, whether or not something wrong was done depends heavily on your point of view and the circumstances. Because of that, the levels of punishment being suggested for different acts varies accordingly.

In fact, I'm starting to think that having any kind of punishment at all may not be a good idea.

Let's look at my team for an example. Team 818 has prided itself on playing by the rules in FIRST. We've never begun our work on designing or building the robot until after kickoff. We don't take parts out of competitions to work on them. We've never, ever done anything to gain an unfair advantage or to harm the chances of another team to the best of my knowledge.

BUT...

Last year, we ended up running behind schedule. By the time my programming group got the finished robot, we had less than a week before the ship date and no autonomous. We knew that there was going to be no way to finish it with the real robot.

What we did instead was we made a "fake robot," if you will. It was a chassis with wheels, motors for the wheels, and weights piled on top to simulate the weight of the actual robot. This "robot" was used so we could finish our autonomous code. We did complete the code in time for our first competition; however, the motors on the actual robot had a different balance than did the practice ones. We didn't switch the motors. Instead, we redid the code and fought with it for three days to finally get it working.

There's nothing in FIRST's rulebook that forbids building a second robot for practicing, or that says that we can't work on our code after the robot has shipped. I don't think that what we did was even remotely wrong, and I'd hope that most in the FIRST community would agree.

Still...did working on our code violate the build season period even though we didn't have any part of the actual robot to do it with? Was building the frame wrong because not every team has the resources to do that? Let's say we were punished for doing this - would the punishment be the same as it would be for a team who builds two identical robots, one solely for practicing (as I know some teams in our area do)? Should it be?

And how do we know what acts are "worse" than others? Is taking a part home from competition to work on it as bad as working on it before the kickoff or after the ship date?

I think that my thoughts are starting to border on a form of existentialism, and I'm not entirely sure how I'd respond to any given incident. All that I've realized is that there isn't any one right way to look at problems such as the ones discussed here.

The best solution may be to have the community judge itself. If something happens at a regional, say, why not let the mentors of the other attending teams decide what punishment is best? How about a "commisioner review" system like the ones in place in sports, where someone in FIRST (Dave?) reviews the situation and chooses a fitting consequence?

There isn't an easy answer to this question, or even a "best" one. If FIRST is to continue to thrive and - more importantly - stick to its ideals, we'll need to find some way to solve the problem.