Concerning Whistleblowing

[Pat Fairbank]

There was a thread recently discussing what should happen when teams fail the size and/or weight requirements during re-inspection. I'd like to start up a related discussion on the act of whistleblowing.

A few times over the course of my years in FIRST, I've seen teams with illegal mechanisms, materials, etc. at competitions. At one of the regionals I've been to this year, I've seen a team (on a Friday, and therefore after inspection) whose bumpers were notched out at the bottom to facilitate ramp climbing. I wasn't sure what to do at the time. I didn't want to call them out on it and be thought of as ungracious, especially if the result of my action would mean the difference between losing and winning a match against the team in question. I ended up not doing anything about the illegal bumpers, apart from making sure that team wasn't on our list of potential alliance picks, in case someone else were to make an issue of it during eliminations.

I should mention that it's not my intention at all to call the inspection system into question here; it would be impossible for all the inspectors to have the six-weeks-plus experience of the rules that FIRST team members have, and so a few mistakes will inevitably be made.

So here are my questions:

• Would you blow the whistle on a team who had gotten through inspection but was still violating the rules, either advertently or inadvertently?
• Would you only blow the whistle under certain circumstances, such as letting it slide during qualifications, but calling the team out if you came up against them in the eliminations?
• If not, would you regret not having done so if the team in question went on to defeat you and win the event?
• Alternately, if you were to confront the team directly about it instead of approaching the inspectors or the referees, how would you go about doing so?
• Where gracious professionalism is concerned, is it a greater wrong to tattle on another team and potentially bring shame upon both teams, or to let the rule-breaking slide?

[Chriszuma]

Well I would probably only decide to call them out on it if the rule breaking was something that would give them an unfair advantage over teams that were following all the rules. Of course, I would bring any potential rule breakage to the attention of the team so they can fix it before they get too close to finals inspection and someone does call them on it. I think that's the most GP thing to do.

[jagman2882]

i think that you have to call them out on it. If i was breaking the rules accidentally i would want to know so i dont have a problem with it down the road. and if they knew then you should tell a inspector because breaking the rules is certiantly NOT GP

[sanddrag]

At SoCal I was an inspector. I saw a team using the plastic gearbox parts from the 2003 (and 2004?) kit of parts. These parts were custom made for FIRST back then, were not manufactured by the team during the build season, and were not COTS parts available to everyone by a legitamate vendor. I didn't inspect this particular robot but I saw it while passing by. I didn't call them on it because it would have ruined their whole shooter if they had to remove those pieces. It wasn't giving them any unfair advantage or presenting any unsafe condition. While the the rules should be followed strictly, I believed that the team would leave the event with a more positive attitude and the spectators and alliance partners would have a more positive experience seeing this robot shoot rather than see it aimlessly drive around. I don't want to scrap anybody's mechanism that they've worked hard for. Team pay good money to have a good time at that event and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. So, in this situation, I kept my mouth shut. But there was one team running Fisher Price motors on 20 gauge wire, and another team with 5 small CIMs, and I couldn't let that slide.

[Chriszuma]

Also, anyone who fills their air system with an offboard compressor is familiar with "the spike rule," which they told us about at our first regional, and several inspectors have agreed is kind of pointless. Since it was in no way unsafe or advantageous, they let us use our air compressor system without having a Spike in the system, as the rules declare. They recognized that the system we had designed was completely safe and the addition of a Spike would only add a degree of unreliability. When we had some downtime, we were able install a spike in the system, but if they had required it to pass inspection we would have had a major hassle on our hands.

In short, a little bit of discretion on the part of inspectors is a good thing. Strict adherence to some rules isn't always feasible, and if it doesn't cause any harm, what's the harm in it?

[sanddrag]

Yep, we faced the off-board air and spike dilema. It is a silly rule. And how are you supposed to use a Spike without at RC? At Phoenix and LA, they let us do it without a Spike.

Another issue is chain guards. They didn't require them at Phoenix but did at LA. I know for a fact we passed without one and ran matches without one as did at least one other team. But everyone had one by the end of the competition.

[TimCraig]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

I didn't want to call them out on it and be thought of as ungracious, especially if the result of my action would mean the difference between losing and winning a match against the team in question.

Would looking the other way while someone breaks the rules be considered "gracious"?

All of us were given the rules and the same time and are expected to follow them. The rules concerning the bumpers were pretty specific. I've heard that cheating in school has become rampant. Is this also carrying over into FIRST? If so, I think enforcement of the rules is in order and to do this the officials need to be informed. I think this is no different than if you fail to inform the police that you've seen a bank robbery.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

At SoCal I was an inspector. I saw a team using the plastic gearbox parts from the 2003 (and 2004?) kit of parts. These parts were custom made for FIRST back then, were not manufactured by the team during the build season, and were not COTS parts available to everyone by a legitamate vendor. I didn't inspect this particular robot but I saw it while passing by. I didn't call them on it because it would have ruined their whole shooter if they had to remove those pieces. It wasn't giving them any unfair advantage or presenting any unsafe condition.

I beg to differ. FRC is not completely fair, it isn't meant to be, and it never will be, however, all teams are given the exact same rules, exact same KoP, and the exact same challenge in an effort to make things as fair as possible across all teams. For a team to knowingly or inadvertently use ANY part that violates the rules, in this case an illegal gearbox from 2004, definitely IS giving them and unfair advantage over all of the other teams who either followed the rules or are newer teams who didn't have the 2004 gearbox available to use. If a team isn't following the rules it is not only unfair to the other teams but it is doing the team breaking the rules a disservice. If the team is KNOWINGLY breaking the rules then the mentors are truly doing the students a disservice by allowing it to continue and therefor rewarding cheating. If a team doesn't know they are breaking the rules then, well, they should have read ALL of the rules more closely like all of the other teams did that aren't breaking the rules. Either way, it is the duty of everyone (students, mentors, and inspectors) to uphold the rules as best as they can. If a team is observed breaking the rules they should be politely informed and given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to correct the problem. If they refuse they should not be allowed to compete until the situation is resolved. In this case, the team that used the 2004 gearbox should have read the rules like the rest of the teams that followed them. The shooter was illegal and should have been removed if it couldn't be redesigned to not use the illegal gearbox.

[sanddrag]

Had that team been informed of their violation, it could have ruined not only their event but their future. While I was there to uphold the rules, I was not there to ruin anyone's day. Besides, it wasn't like they had a Briggs Lawnmower engine on there. Also, I believe the evidence that is was a non issue is the fact that I am the only one who brought it up. Teams should be proud of themselves for following the rules, not angry at other teams who don't. That is their problem, not ours.

[TimCraig]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

Strict adherence to some rules isn't always feasible, and if it doesn't cause any harm, what's the harm in it?

I consider a number of rules that FIRST has to be unnecessary or even silly. And when we've questioned them to FIRST, we've been told that's the way it is. One case in point, using double sided tape to fasten the robot numbers and logos on the polycarbonate sides. Why using adhesive Velcro is "superior" I have no idea but we do it to avoid having to argue with the inspectors. Yet every year I see robots using tape to hold on their numbers or even making their numbers out of tape. So next year I should just ignore the rule and if anyone calls me on it tell them they're being silly?

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'll vote for bringing the situation to the team's attention and offering to help them rectify it. It's entirely possible they're just clueless and in need of some guidance. After that, it's a much tougher choice, of course. I'd probably ask the inspectors to look at a team again if it came down to it. Of course, one of our students asked a ref at GLR to talk with a team that had bumpers falling off because they were attached with wood screws. He just got shrugged off and sent on his way.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Had that team been informed of their violation, it could have ruined not only their event but their future. While I was there to uphold the rules, I was not there to ruin anyone's day. Besides, it wasn't like they had a Briggs Lawnmower engine on there.

Ruin is a rather strong word. FIRST is about more than winning a robotics competition. I would hope that the particular infration in question was not done intentionally. Who can say if this would actually have ruined their competition or not? I am always impressed with the resoursefulness of FIRST teams in the heat of competition. Maybe they could have rechanneled their creativity in a different direction. Maybe other teams could have jumped in and helped them with legal spare parts and come up with a more effective design?

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Also, I believe the evidence that is was a non issue is the fact that I am the only one who brought it up.

Maybe you were the only one to notice, maybe not. If others noticed and didn't say anything either then the whole level of competition just lowered a notch.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Teams should be proud of themselves for following the rules, not angry at other teams who don't.

Agreed 100%

Originally Posted by sanddrag

That is their problem, not ours.

I do not want to start a flame war here or anything so let's just leave this alone and agree to disagree. I will say this, FIRST is a microcosm of the real World. We all need to work together to solve these problems not pass them off to someone else.

[Tim Delles]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank
So here are my questions:[list

[*]Would you blow the whistle on a team who had gotten through inspection but was still violating the rules, either advertently or inadvertently?[*]Would you only blow the whistle under certain circumstances, such as letting it slide during qualifications, but calling the team out if you came up against them in the eliminations?[*]If not, would you regret not having done so if the team in question went on to defeat you and win the event?[*]Alternately, if you were to confront the team directly about it instead of approaching the inspectors or the referees, how would you go about doing so?[*]Where gracious professionalism is concerned, is it a greater wrong to tattle on another team and potentially bring shame upon both teams, or to let the rule-breaking slide?[/list]

Well the very first thing I do is to go up and discuss this with them. Because if they do not know that it is illegal then they should be informed of it, and I am very sure that any team would fix the problem.

If they know of it I would just remind them and wait and see what happens.

If nothing happens talk to a lead mentor on your team so that they can discuss it with them, and then if it is still a problem bring the rule to one of the inspectors and all them to handle it. But try to avoid bringing the inspectors back into. I just feel this way because almost everyone doesn't want to have to be re-inspected and it is a lot easier just to talk to the team quickly about it.

Just my 2 cents.

Tim

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

Well the very first thing I do is to go up and discuss this with them. Because if they do not know that it is illegal then they should be informed of it, and I am very sure that any team would fix the problem.

If this were any other event or sport I would agree with this statement. My understanding of gracious professionalism forces me to think otherwise for two reasons:

Professionalism. On FIRST teams and in my career as an engineer, I take the position that the people I deal with are professionals. This means they know what they are doing, they are qualified to perform their tasks, and they have earned the right to be in that position. It would be extreemly un-professional for me to second guess another persons skills, ability, knowledge and especially their motives unless I am absolutely certain that they have made a serious error, or they are doing something dangerous to themselves or others. For FIRST teams, this means the students and mentors on all teams are automatically granted the status of professionals in FIRST related things, equal to me, and should be respected accordingly.

Grace. This word deals with how we handle errors and mistakes. The opposite of grace is punishment, rejection, and public humilation. If no one made any mistakes then grace would not be needed. Grace is applied when you know someone else has made a mistake but you DONT hold their feet to the fire.

We have been tasked to interact with each other with both the P and the G. A simple way of combining the two is to give the other person the benefit of doubt. Are you absolutely sure that team did not buy those gears from a COTS source? Are you certain you understand all the aspects of the rule you think another team appears to be violating?

If you are going to confront another team it should only be over matters of a very serious nature. In my career I have confronted managers and project leaders when I thought actions being taken might be illegal, or might expose the company to liabilities that we could not handle. Confrontation is a valuable tool, but it should only be used when absolutely needed.

Without GP FIRST could easily degrade into a contest involving the exchange of various body fluids. I would rather err on the side of Grace then to see FIRST come to the point where we have FIRST-Dads beating each other up in the stands because one driver rammed another robot just a little to hard, or teams showing up for regionals with lawyers.

As an engineer there are times when I review and critique other peoples work : design reviews, job interviews, performance reviews. Even at these events we never judge the person, we judge the work only. If you are a FIRST inspector, a judge, or a ref then you should hold each team to the standards that FIRST has established.

If you are not an inspector, a judge, or a ref then you are NOT an inspector, a judge or a ref, unless another team asks for your opinion or assistance.

[Chriszuma]

Originally Posted by TimCraig

I consider a number of rules that FIRST has to be unnecessary or even silly. And when we've questioned them to FIRST, we've been told that's the way it is. One case in point, using double sided tape to fasten the robot numbers and logos on the polycarbonate sides. Why using adhesive Velcro is "superior" I have no idea but we do it to avoid having to argue with the inspectors. Yet every year I see robots using tape to hold on their numbers or even making their numbers out of tape. So next year I should just ignore the rule and if anyone calls me on it tell them they're being silly?

Clearly these things need to go on a case-by-case basis. I agree that rules are rules (even if only on the purely logical standpoint that 1==1). As such, every effort needs to be taken to ensure that all teams follow them. In the case of the air compressor spike, it would have been a major detriment, and an executive decision was made to let it slide for the time being, based on the intentions of the rule and the situation. However, if the case involves using tape decorations, then it really isn't causing a large problem to make the team replace it with something more appropriate.

If you are going to confront another team it should only be over matters of a very serious nature. In my career I have confronted managers and project leaders when I thought actions being taken might be illegal, or might expose the company to liabilities that we could not handle. Confrontation is a valuable tool, but it should only be used when absolutely needed.

I disagree. You don't have to make a confrontation out of this. You can simply talk to the other team and ask them if they knew about rule R07 or whichever they appear to be breaking. That seems much more gracious than saying "not my problem."

Without GP FIRST could easily degrade into a contest involving the exchange of various body fluids.

Um, exaggerate much?