If you could change one rule - eliminate ship requirement discussion

[Ken Patton]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

OK, here is an interesting rule change.
Eliminate the ship date. That would be one HUGE rule change.
Andy B.

I have always voiced concerns about the "no ship" idea, mainly for the reasons already mentioned: 1)the rich will get richer by making better use of the added time, so the less fortunate teams will not be happy; and 2)the burnout factor will be significantly worse because the intense part of the season just got extended. I still feel that way, and I might regret supporting the "no ship" approach here....but what the heck, here is my attempt to brainstorm on Andy's suggestion by making a few modifications. I'm
brainstorming here - please don't think I am convinced this is a good idea .

The basic assumption is, in order to save money, allow teams to bring their robot to their regional competition(s), allow them to take it home after the competition(s), and allow them to bring it to the Championship. Allow them to work on it any time after kickoff and before the Championship finals. FWOF. Fifteen Weeks Of Fun. Fifteen WithOut Family. FIRST Will Overwhelm Fanatics. Finally We Organize FIRST.

We have some problems to overcome, so we need some solutions:

Problem 1: Don't let the rich get richer. If we give the fortunate teams more time, they will widen the gap to the less fortunate teams.
Solution 1: Peer-pressure historically experienced teams to compete at earlier regionals (make it a badge of GP-honor to be a week1 competitor, and try to reserve week5 for rookies and 2nd year teams). Maybe have a quantitative rating system. Also Solution 2 helps.

Problem 2. Prevent burnout.
Solution 2: Shorten the time between Kickoff and week1 regionals. Have regionals start the Thursday of week6. No rest after build season.

Problem 3: Allowing teams to work continuously on their bot will result in copying of the "winning" ideas and lack of creativity. (This already occurs now, btw)
Solution 3: Right before the start of regionals, require teams to issue a capability statement indicating what their robot is capable of or will be capable of. Not strategies, but functions. Essentially define the hardware they plan to run. Submit pictures. In the following weeks, disallow any big hardware (not strategy or tactics) changes that the team apparently copied from watching regionals. Allow any changes that didn't require big hardware modifications. The problem is how to efficiently enforce such a judgement-intensive mess.

Problem 4: Late regionals will be in more demand because it will allow teams more time. Late registerers will cry "I got robbed of time" because the late spots will fill up.
Solution 4: See Solution 1. Old teams help the new teams by giving them the late season slots. Might need to tweak the regional schedule to balance the geographic regions. Life will still be not fair. Some will take advantage.

Keep in mind that this so-called "no ship" approach doesn't eliminate shipping - we still need to get our bots to the show. But as Andy indicated, it would reduce the costs. No more expensive MCS bills (love this!). Plus, there would not be a need for a 2nd bot for practice/autonomous - this would be a time/money/fairness benefit.

The above was only brainstorming.....

Ken

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Ken Patton

I have always voiced concerns about the "no ship" idea, mainly for the reasons already mentioned: 1)the rich will get richer by making better use of the added time, so the less fortunate teams will not be happy; and 2)the burnout factor will be significantly worse because the intense part of the season just got extended. I still feel that way, and I might regret supporting the "no ship" approach here....but what the heck, here is my attempt to brainstorm on Andy's suggestion by making a few modifications. I'm
brainstorming here - please don't think I am convinced this is a good idea .

I'm with Ken on this one. I'm not a big fan of this idea either. Cory did a really good job encapsulating the "Con" side of the argument. But, I'm going to follow Ken's lead and try add to Andy's idea.

Many of the rules that we have in FIRST are only enforced by an honour code. The 25 lbs. of spare parts, and the restrictions imposed during the fix it windows are good example. Was there anyone making sure that all new code was retyped at the competition venues? Obviously not. We left it up to the teams to honour this rule. What am I getting at? We could impose some restrictions on teams via the honour code, that would make the "No Ship" rule a lot more palatable.

Rule 1: Tools down day occurs on the Wednesday before the 1st weekend of regionals. This means, no more physical additions or changes to your robot past this date. Software development, fabrication of spares, repairs and practice are still allowed.

Rule 2: After each regional you compete at you get three days to repair your robot.

Rule 3: This one is similar to Ken's idea, where a team would declare certain functionalities, to prevent "copycat" robots.

These restrictions would help prevent the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" from growing too much. The tools down rule would definitely lessen the burnout factor, and prevent the build season from running for 3.5 months.

The big question is, would teams adhere to this type of an honour code? Would teams be able to stare at their incomplete robot and not work on it? At every competition, would people be looking at the dominant robots and wonder "Did they really put their tools down?" How much do we all really trust each other. I'm not too sure this is the best idea, but maybe it could work. I'd like to think that I have a good amount of faith in the participants of this program.

Again, I'm just bouncing ideas around, I'm more than fine with keeping things as they are right now.