Concerning Whistleblowing

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

Um, exaggerate much?

where was it this last year, some kids dad beat another kids father to death at a HS hockey game?

[Chriszuma]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

where was it this last year, some kids dad beat another kids father to death at a HS hockey game?

I agree that Gracious Professionalism is important in keeping the competition civilized, but bodily fluids? Come on.

[ahecht]

Originally Posted by Chriszuma

Um, exaggerate much?

I think what Ken was referring to here was a "p---ing contest", not an actual exchange of body fluids.

[Peter Matteson]

Okaaaay...

To get back on topic I have whistleblown in the past. At a regional on Thursday I took a look at all the robots as I'm inclined to do at all regionals. I saw two issues at 20 feet from the robots that I thought were obvious. I went and asked if these robots had been inspected and was told they had. I then asked the inspector to look at something on each robot and showed him a line item in the robot section of the handbook that applied to the obvious problems I saw. One team was using a motor that we hadn't gotten in the kit that year. The other was using too many of a motor.

I didn't have a problem with saying this to anyone because we all get the same rules and parts at the begining of the season. Doing what these teams did was flagrantly violating rules.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

OK, I feel the need to jump in here.
When ever an inspector notices something out of the ordinary whether during final inspection or during match play, it is important to bring it to the lead inspector. In most cases, the lead working with the head refereee will come to a decision on the best way to handle it. Referees on the field have brought things to my attention at every event I have worked. Inspectors cannot find everything, myself included.
As to the "silly" rules, I don't believe there are any. Would I do things differently, perhaps. The rule book puts some constraints on your robot design to give you added "real world problems" to challenge you, your robot and your drivers. Is it possible for a robot team to intentionally break the rules, of course, it is human nature. Team mentors need to keep their teams on track and within the rules, that is their solemn duty in this organization. Throughout life we need to ask ourselves the hard questions, if we don't answer honestly, where will we be? The same holds true here. When faced with "I can do this and no one will know" the answer better be "NO, I can't!". It is not teaching the students on your team or other teams the correct way to live their lives.
Sanddrag, I truly believe that if you had brought it to the Lead Inpsector, they would have been able to help the team become compliant and play in some manner. I have been astounded at how many teams read through the manual but miss so much, this year in particular.
Adhesive use is another manner, the people at the top don't want teams to become lazy and use tape. Using electrical tape for team numbers is acceptable and has been for years, hence the 3/4" stroke, the same size as tape.
Finally, FIRST has gone out of their way to provide a variety of documentation to help teams get through inspection, the current documents are at Rev E for robot inspection. Every team should have their students go through this checklist before bringing the robot for inspection. It is unfortunate but teams may still pass at one event and be called out at another event for the same device. Expect the inspections at Championship to be more thorough than the regionals.

[Swan217]

This is a VERY good ethical question to pose...

Hmm, If it were me, I think I'd talk to the team and mention it to them that they are breaking the rules. If they shrug it off or ignore me, then I wouldn't feel bad blowing the whistle to the head inspector.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

...Referees on the field have brought things to my attention at every event I have worked...

In Milwaukee, for example, I brought it to Al's attention that team XXX had electrical tape wrapped around the radio connection to about half way onto the transmitter. He questioned them as to why they were using the tape for its mechanical properties. They replied they were trying to stop static interference. He pointed out that the tape would do them no good, and suggested instead that they move the transmitter from against a Fisher Price motor.

The moral is: You are doing everyone a favor when you ask the lead inspector to check something out of the ordinary.

[GaryVoshol]

Volunteering at GLR and Detroit, I saw a variety of ways that inspection was handled. Please don't think this is criticism. It is impossible for any inspector to completely memorize all the rules. Some things inevitably get overlooked. Weight and size are easy to measure. It takes a long time for a complete inspection to verify no illegal parts and safety. I think the inspectors do an admirable job - one I have absolutely no ability or desire to try.

Two items were the new things this year - bumpers and flag holders. Partway through the build season Q&A made a ruling that we couldn't swiss-cheese the flag holder tube, and in an update we were told because some teams might take it too far. Also every tube had to have a bottom cap even if it wasn't needed to keep the flag in the tube. Our robot was called for not having a bottom cap - because the tube rested on a horizontal frame cross-member that just happened to be at the correct height. We stuck a cap on it. Later I saw a robot with a tube without any cap (maybe it fell off post-inspection, I don't know) so that the flagpole went completely through the tube until the flag material caught on top.

I saw side bumpers that had the lower corners cut at an angle - no doubt to facilitate getting on the ramp. As far as I know, it was allowed to compete that way. However at Detroit, one robot was pulled aside to have the bumper height measured. The front bumper was mounted too high (outside the 2.5" to 8.5" bumper zone) and they had to correct it.

I can understand the frustration of teams that meet the rules, seeing teams that "get away" with things. Does it matter, does it give an advantage? In the case of mis-shaped bumpers I'd say it does, because the team is operating outside the established parameters in order to accomplish a game task. In the case of a tube without an end cap, it gives no advantage, but if it causes the flag to not be displayed properly, it does matter. In the case of extra motors, there obviously is an operational advantage. In the case of incorrect wiring, there is a safety issue.

We shouldn't be about pointing out things to inspectors "just because" we see they are wrong. The inspectors correctly don't play the "gotcha" game; neither should we. If we see an obvious safety issue, we should point it out to the team in a non-threatening manner; if they don't correct it then we should approach an inspector.

I don't know how to handle the safe but outside rules issues. We're not to be tattle-tales. But teams that made compromises in order to abide by the rules should not be disadvantaged when other teams do not make those same compromises.

[LauraN]

Hmmm....this is clearly a tricky question.

I think rule number one here should be this: if I ever decide to take action because I feel a team has broken the rules, I would always bring it to the team's attention first, before involving inspectors. This goes back to what Ken said- respect is an important part of GP, and if I were on the receiving end of this, I would much rather have another team approach me (in a friendly way!) and bring the subject to my attention, rather than have an inspector come back after approving the robot because he/she received some "anonymous tip." This is FIRST, not America's Most Wanted. We're not out to get each other, we're here to help each other learn.

When should you mention a rules concern that you have? When safety is an issue, always. Otherwise, I guess it's up to you. Look at the example sanddrag gave us: suppose you're in that situation. You see a team that has illegal parts completely wound up in one of the most important components of their robot. Let's give the team the benefit of the doubt for a minute and say that just didn't read the rules carefully enough. You "blow the whistle" on them and they have to dismantle half of their robot. Maybe they are amazingly creative and they come up with something else on the fly- great. But maybe not. Now they have a drivetrain to put on the field. They can still compete but all those students who worked for hours upon hours and were really proud of the design are just a little heartbroken ...has anything good really come of that situation? =/ I don't know.

Now, if the team in question had done all of this on purpose, knowing that they were cheating...I suppose this would become a different question, assuming that we had any way of reading minds. Now we're in really sticky territory. But suppose we know for a fact that this team was cheating. No matter how cool we think it is, FIRST still exists in the real world. Which means that some FIRSTers will cheat, and the fact that they are FIRSTers doesn't make the cheating any less uncool. Cheaters still need to be forced to follow the rules, no matter how much positive bias we have towards them just because they happen to be FIRST nuts too.

Every situation has to be taken separately. Should the first team have read the rules more carefully? Absolutely. But there's a big difference between screwing up and blatantly cheating, and there should also be a difference in how we treat each case. (Even though it should always be with GP.)

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

Okaaaay...

To get back on topic I have whistleblown in the past. At a regional on Thursday I took a look at all the robots as I'm inclined to do at all regionals. I saw two issues at 20 feet from the robots that I thought were obvious. I went and asked if these robots had been inspected and was told they had. I then asked the inspector to look at something on each robot and showed him a line item in the robot section of the handbook that applied to the obvious problems I saw. One team was using a motor that we hadn't gotten in the kit that year. The other was using too many of a motor.

I didn't have a problem with saying this to anyone because we all get the same rules and parts at the begining of the season. Doing what these teams did was flagrantly violating rules.

I had no idea that rule violations are so rampant at FIRST events. You have completely changed my mind about this.

Im thinking now that each team should appoint students and mentors to be unofficial final inspectors, to discreetly check out every other robot at the event to make sure that no team is getting away with anything (all three days).

And Im thinking FIRST should hire certified professional engineers to be inspectors. The amateur inspectors clearly are not catching all the violations.

I shutter to think what would happen to this program if a team won the championship, and they had illegal parts on their robot, and the media got wind of it! Massive lawsuits!

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I had no idea that rule violations are so rampant at FIRST events. You have completely changed my mind about this.

Im thinking now that each team should appoint students and mentors to be unofficial final inspectors, to discreetly check out every other robot at the event to make sure that no team is getting away with anything (all three days).

And Im thinking FIRST should hire certified professional engineers to be inspectors. The amateur inspectors clearly are not catching all the violations.

I shutter to think what would happen to this program if a team won the championship, and they had illegal parts on their robot, and the media got wind of it! Massive lawsuits!

My point was more that I wanted to know if they passed inspection, because I was going to say something to them about it. Then the head inspector realized why I was asking and took it upon himself to speak to the teams.

I thought that using motors that were not in the kit and twice the number of a motor in the kit was pretty obvious. I had also heard other people commenting on the problems because they were quite obvious to many people with several years experience. At some point it one of us had to ask the question, did they pass inspection that way?

Both teams made the necessary changes and competed.

I don't want to get the into the crazy lawyering scenarios that this can cause. We all get the same rules and KOP. Why do some teams not read them?

BTW One team quite clearly mixed up parts from a previous year with the new kit and the swap out for the correct motor took 5 min.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

My point was more that I wanted to know if they passed inspection, because I was going to say something to them about it. Then the head inspector realized why I was asking and took it upon himself to speak to the teams.

\

ok, that is reasonable. Your other post sounded like you were the self-appointed final inspector, and I was getting a little freaked out! :^)

[sanddrag]

Concerning the team I thought had broken the rules by using 2003 or 2004 gearbox components, it would appear that it is indeed legal by R22. My mistake.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Concerning the team I thought had broken the rules by using 2003 or 2004 gearbox components, it would appear that it is indeed legal by R22. My mistake.

<R22> allows use of components from previous robots IF they satisfy all of the other materials/parts rules for 2006.

The 2003-04 KOP gearbox plastic frames do not satisfy <R41> because they are neither generally available from suppliers nor fabricated by the team.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by Richard

<R22> allows use of components from previous robots IF they satisfy all of the other materials/parts rules for 2006.

The 2003-04 KOP gearbox plastic frames do not satisfy <R41> because they are neither generally available from suppliers nor fabricated by the team.

Thank you. That's the basis I was originally going off of but just couldn't find.