Concerning Whistleblowing

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

\

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

Wow, I just realized that first post didn't read how I intended. I ment when I look around at other robots its a kind of geek out to see how they do what they do. I'm more interested in talking with the teams about the why and how. I also like to chat with the CD posters I get to meet in person. During the course of this if I notice something I ask about it. Conversely I expect the same from other people at the events. I didn't want to make it sound like I was looking for rules violations.

[Lil' Lavery]

Personally, I would approach the team about it, and point it out to them. I would only then approach a referee/inspector about it if they did not fix the issue AND it was a safety violation and/or clearly an illegal feature that gives their robot an unfair advantage (such as using illegal motors, or potentially damaging robot features).

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

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

The rules explicitly permit recycling of parts from previous year's robots as can be seen in rules R22 and R24 which I quote:

<R22> Individual COMPONENTS from robots entered in previous FIRST competitions may be used on 2006 robots IF they satisfy ALL of the rules associated with materials/parts use for the 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition.

<R24> Individual COMPONENTS retrieved from previous robots and used on 2006 robots must have their undepreciated cost included in the 2006 robot cost accounting, and applied to the overall cost limits.

The only thing that makes these parts illegal is the fact they are not currently available as COTS items. At least I don't think they are. They were at one time available as spares. They might still be available, in which case they are legal parts. They were certainly COTS items when they were originally obtained.

Knowing the way our parts storage area gets around week 4 of build. It would be entirely possible for somebody to get confused about which year a part was from. In addition, a team might not be aware that the parts are no longer available and therefore no longer COTS, especially if there is no institutional memory as to where the parts came from.

Not saying it's right, just understandable.

[Richard Wallace]

My concern is that any non-compliance gives the offending team a potential advantage -- the non-compliance generally saves weight or size or time or cost, or makes a robot function more effective, or worst of all lets the team avoid thinking just a little bit harder to find a rules-compliant solution.

As Woody keeps repeating, FIRST wants us to think until it hurts. Non-compliant robots almost always got that way because someone didn't think hard enough.

Of course, sometimes the rules themselves are poorly constructed -- such rules usually disappear next season after someone has had time to think harder. Maybe we should only avoid whistleblowing over poorly constructed rules? But then who should decide which rules need changing and therefore which ones we can choose to ignore? Oh, yes, that would be the GDC!

So there are no silly rules, no rules that we can just choose to ignore. The only sensible course is to try to follow them all.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by ChrisH

... The only thing that makes these parts illegal is the fact they are not currently available as COTS items. At least I don't think they are. They were at one time available as spares. They might still be available, in which case they are legal parts. They were certainly COTS items when they were originally obtained.

No, they weren't. They were direct (identical) replacements for KOP items when they were originally obtained, and therefore subject to KOP quantity limits when used in years for which they were included in the KOP. They are not KOP items now. And they have not become COTS items, either.

[sw293]

At Annapolis team 293 found ourselves in picking position after Friday. During the scouting meeting Friday night we discussed concerns about two robots' compliance with <R32>. Both were on our list of teams we thought we might pick, so we made it a point to look at each team's robot the next morning (conducting our own inspection), and we asked one of the teams to make sure with the inspectors that their robot did not violate <R32>. Even though we believed their robot did not violate the rules, it was still important for us (and them) to know they were not going to get disqualified in an elimination match should some time finger them for the percieved (possibly nonexistent) rule violation. We learned this lesson (at the expense of another team) in Trenton.

At Trenton during the elimination rounds, we in good faith challenged a team on their main battery, which was obviously not from the kit of parts. The ref disqualified their battery, and forced them to use the kit battery instead. Turns out we were probably wrong:

<R51> The only legal main source of electrical energy on the robot is the 12VDC non-spillable lead acid battery provided in the Kit of Parts. That 12V battery is the Exide type EX18-12. The ES18-12 battery, purchased through your local Exide supplier as a spare, is identical and may also be used.

Likewise, inspectors make mistakes during inspection. Sometimes they overlook things. Sometimes they make a mistake because they don't fully know and understand the rules, just as our drivers did when they challenged the other team's batteries, and just as the ref did when he said they couldn't use the batteries.

A side note: There is a fundamental difference between the roles of referee and inspector. The referee makes irreversible, binding decisions, i.e. his word is "final" and even if you have a irrefutable argument that one of his calls was wrong. This is not unreasonable, because a ref must quickly make decisions even where he is not fully informed of the facts on the field (i.e. he doesn't get to use instant replay). Because the head ref must make these irreversible "final" calls, he should know and understand these rules (those in "The Game") more thoroughly than 99.99% of the coaches, drivers, human players, scouts, mentors, judges and spectators in the arena. If an inspector refuses to pass your robot, but then you show him that because of rule X your robot should be permitted, I have a hunch the inspector will listen to your argument. If you have a good point, he will probably pass your robot. You see, the people who will be the most well-versed on the rules of "The Robot" are necessarily those who built a robot according to those rules. Unless an inspector either took a especially active role in building a robot or participated in making the rules himself, he will likely know less about these rules and their nuances, interpretations, and applications than the members on each team that worked for six weeks to build a robot consistent with all of those rules. If a ref is wrong on a call on the field, there is no recourse, but if an inspector is wrong in one of his decisions, there is. This is why a robot that has passed inspection can be declared illegal on the playing field before a match. You even have a place arguing the decision of a referee on an interpretation of "The Robot", but you must have a copy of the rules on hand and be able to explain why your robot upholds them in order to successfully make your case. If the team whose battery we had challenged had ready a copy of rule <R51>, then the head ref would have allowed their batteries.

Back on the subject of whistleblowing, FIRST has written a rule on what you should do should you suspect a team is in violation of the robot rules:

<R107> ...If you observe that another team’s robot may be in violation of the robot rules, please approach FIRST officials to review the matter in question. This is an area where “Gracious Professionalism” is very important."

Team 293 didn't adhere to this rule literally when we approached the team we had a concern about in Annapolis. But FIRST also has the following to say about the robot rules:

When reading these Rules, please use technical common sense (engineering thinking) rather than a lawyer's interpretation. Try to understand the reasoning behind a rule.

It does not take a genius to understand the reasoning behind of R107: "This is an area where “Gracious Professionalism” is very important." In Annapolis we certainly thought it more in the interest of gracious professionalism to approach the team with our concerns, so they could bring the issue up with inspectors prepared. In Trenton, we brought our (misplaced) concerns about a team's batteries to a FIRST official, forcing a quick, unprepared decision--a decision that turned out to be wrong. If you have concerns about a team's robot, whenever you are in a position to do it politely you should bring it to the attention of that team first.

[EricH]

This is something that depends on the situation. If they haven't passed inspection, try the team first. If they can show you something in the rules that permits the item in question, let the inspectors handle it. If they have (and they made a big modification recently), talk to the inspectors and make sure they have been reinspected.

An example: in AZ, during practice rounds, I saw a rookie robot glowing green--the exact green of the field lights. I was pretty sure they hadn't been inspected yet, so about half an hour later I went over and suggested they a) turn the lights off during the matches or b) take the lights off completely, and explained why. (I also volunteered to show them the rule if they wanted to see it.) They chose the second option.

Whatever you do, do it in graciously professional manner.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by sw293

Likewise, inspectors make mistakes during inspection. Sometimes they overlook things. Sometimes they make a mistake because they don't fully know and understand the rules, just as our drivers did when they challenged the other team's batteries, and just as the ref did when he said they couldn't use the batteries.
A side note: There is a fundamental difference between the roles of referee and inspector.

Bill,
My point was that most Lead Inspectors are not newcomers or people who have not built a robot. In fact they are either on a team or have served as inspector in the past. Yes, we do not catch everything but we do know the best way to handle a problem when it arises and on particulalrly difficult problems will consult with the head ref, First Tech Advisor, or even make a call to FIRST when needed. Lead inspectors are trained and participate in a conference call once each week during the season to discuss past issues and new rulings. There is a variety of training douments for all inspectors and a KOP to show major components to inspectors in training. We depend on the eyes of the refs, field people, FTA, and other team members to point out what may have been missed and they walk the pits to catch whatever might have fallen through the cracks.
Eric, thanks for the GP when approaching the team about lights. If the refs hadn't said something to them the inspector would have caught it as it is a specific question on the inspection form. It is very easy when you are looking over a robot when a team has asked for assistance to say "Did you check that with the inspector? I seem to think it might be a violation." However, in some situations, a team may take offense to such an approach and that is why it is better handled by the inspection team working with the head ref.

[Not2B]

Oh, you should go to an inspector.

We were team XXX with the tape on the radio. We were getting wicked static build up on the robot, and our radio waqs dropping out. So we taped up the exposed metal as a test. Didn't do much. We moved the radio, and it worked better.

We shipped the robot with the tape on. Did all of GLR with the blue tape.

Part way through Wisconson Al asked us what it was for, the students told him static prevention (which is why it was put on, even if it didn't work.) But we had no issues taking it off. No biggie. It's all good.

But I say tell an inspector. WHY? Because the students will listen to an inspector. They are an inspector. Our student's wouldn't do something wrong on purpose. They thought it was legal. If someone random just came up and said they had to change, the students would probably ignore them. An inspector is right. If people started changing based on random peoples input, next thing you will know is that people will be telling teams they only got 2 small CIM motors, and they can only use 2.

[sw293]

Originally Posted by Not2B

Oh, you should go to an inspector.

We were team XXX with the tape on the radio. We were getting wicked static build up on the robot, and our radio waqs dropping out. So we taped up the exposed metal as a test. Didn't do much. We moved the radio, and it worked better.

We shipped the robot with the tape on. Did all of GLR with the blue tape.

Part way through Wisconson Al asked us what it was for, the students told him static prevention (which is why it was put on, even if it didn't work.) But we had no issues taking it off. No biggie. It's all good.

But I say tell an inspector. WHY? Because the students will listen to an inspector. They are an inspector. Our student's wouldn't do something wrong on purpose. They thought it was legal. If someone random just came up and said they had to change, the students would probably ignore them. An inspector is right. If people started changing based on random peoples input, next thing you will know is that people will be telling teams they only got 2 small CIM motors, and they can only use 2.

Going to an inspector might have been the best course of action in your case, but in general, I disagree. I am sure both our team and the other team involved will tell you that the manner in which we handled our concerns in Annapolis made the situation better than it would have been had we gotten an inspector involved. We saw on a couple of robots in Annapolis what we thought might be illegal parts (specifically wheels), so we decided on Friday night to read the rules more carefully instead of impulsively taking an uneducated accusation to an inspector. We concluded that both teams should pass inspection. However, looking to avoid a situation like the one in Trenton where we incorrectly but successfully objected to a team's non-kit batteries before an elimination match, we decided to bring our concerns to the team early the next morning. They recieved us and our concerns well (thanks in large part to our position on the leaderboard at the time). We suggested they make sure the inspectors agreed with our ultimate assessment that the wheels were allowed and we gave them a copy of the relevant rule to support their case. I repeat: If you have concerns about a team's robot, whenever you are in a position to do it politely you should bring it to the attention of that team first.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Not2B

Oh, you should go to an inspector.
Part way through Wisconson Al asked us what it was for, the students told him static prevention (which is why it was put on, even if it didn't work.) But we had no issues taking it off. No biggie. It's all good.

Brian,
I never did hear back. Did moving the modem fix the problem?

[pathew100]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Brian,
I never did hear back. Did moving the modem fix the problem?

I'd have to ask the software team but I think it helped reduce the amount of data packets that were resent. Thanks for your help!