Please read R17

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by JVN

I'd like to believe there is some intent here beyond making Paul (and others) aggravated.
-JV

Intent. That is the key word. This year, the intent of this rule and many others is quite unclear. Perhaps we would better appreciate the rules if we knew the intent. But Q/A responses such as "the robot controller is part of the robot so it must be shipped" do not at all help us understand the intent of the rule. A lot of the Q/A responses seem quickly put together to get teams to (how else do I say it) shut up and follow the rules. So many of the responses in there don't give any basis, reasoning, or explanation of intent.

For FIRST's sake, they should let us know what they are trying to get at, rather than letting us make potentially false assumptions.

[gail]

FIRST makes the rules based on feedback at the team forums

FIRST is not operating in a vacuum. The rules are developed by taking into account the feedback they receive at the team forums following the close of the season. This is the purpose of the forums.

Teams complain bitterly about the playing field not being level.
Teams complain about the amount of time being spent
Teams complain about all sorts of things.

If every complaint was analyzed in terms of FIRST's goal of inspiring students to choose engineering, science and technology careers, the result would be vastly different.

Teams would be encouraged to program and try out new code.
Teams would be encouraged to develop and improve their systems.

The learning would not stop simply because the robot ships, unless.....
its about winning, and fairness, and competing successfully, not about learning.

So, which is it?

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by gail

FIRST makes the rules based on feedback at the team forums

FIRST is not operating in a vacuum. The rules are developed by taking into account the feedback they receive at the team forums following the close of the season. This is the purpose of the forums.

Teams complain bitterly about the playing field not being level.
Teams complain about the amount of time being spent
Teams complain about all sorts of things.

If every complaint was analyzed in terms of FIRST's goal of inspiring students to choose engineering, science and technology careers, the result would be vastly different.

Teams would be encouraged to program and try out new code.
Teams would be encouraged to develop and improve their systems.

The learning would not stop simply because the robot ships, unless.....
its about winning, and fairness, and competing successfully, not about learning.

So, which is it?

FIRST does not always listen. FIRST has had a large number of turn overs. FIRST does not ever give us the intent of the rules. They do however expect us to read their minds. <R17> seems to have the intent to allow teams to spend a bit of time to get ready but they are dictating that we cannot choose our time before the first regional. Many of us barely get through and we look forward to a bit of a break. Why should FIRST care if we spend 10 hours in one day (which is legal) or five 2 hour sessions?

I have even asked in the Q&A if the Q&A are official rules or just the updates (as it was last year) and the did not reply to that part of the question so I asked again and I am still waiting for an answer. The answer should be in the updates as how can the Q&A answer if the are official until given that responsibility.

[meaubry]

[quote=Steve W]Why should FIRST care if we spend 10 hours in one day (which is legal) or five 2 hour sessions?

Exactly correct Steve -
I have no problem understanding WHAT the time is to be used for - it is clear in both content and intent.
I have a problem with WHEN it must be used - in both content and intent (I just don't get why it was for 2 - 5 hours sessions without regard for the team being allowed to determine when the best use of the 10 hours could be scheduled)

[Jason Kixmiller]

I feel that FIRST is torn by the trends of development. How do you keep established/successful teams from becoming complacent while still keeping new teams encouraged? Learning is a very important aspect of FIRST, however, school boards, sponsors, and even some mentors can easily fall into the trap of using competitive success as a benchmark for the team’s achievement. I feel that it is FIRST’s intention to make learning and inspiration the primary achievements, while it is human nature to place competition at the forefront.

So what is the answer? I don’t believe there is an answer that can be recorded in <RULE> format. Life (and FIRST competition/philosophy) is comprised of grey areas; however, the competitive drive of teams is forcing FIRST to define every aspect imaginable. It is my personal feeling that FIRST has been most successful when the “code” of Gracious Professionalism can stand on its own… will there be specific twists and manipulations of this unwritten rule? Yes, but there will always be controversies, and it really seems that with more specific rules come more frustrated individuals. I respect each member of any FIRST team that is truly trying to help students…how they choose to do so is up to them.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by Jason Kixmiller

I feel that FIRST is torn by the trends of development. How do you keep established/successful teams from becoming complacent while still keeping new teams encouraged? Learning is a very important aspect of FIRST, however, school boards, sponsors, and even some mentors can easily fall into the trap of using competitive success as a benchmark for the team’s achievement. I feel that it is FIRST’s intention to make learning and inspiration the primary achievements, while it is human nature to place competition at the forefront.

So what is the answer?

What about competition classes? I have felt for a long time now that the divide between the "have" and "have not" teams and the rookie and veteran teams is getting wider and wider. I see more and more use of sophisticated equipment like CNC and water jet machines which really increases that gap. It is really getting harder and harder for the little teams to be competitive. This one reason I really love the kitbot chassis and transmissions and drop in wheels from IFI and all of the wonderful products AndyMark markets specifically toward teams that may not have the resources to build their own. With the increase in popularity of FRC (well over 1000 teams this year) maybe it is time to start thinking of breaking up the FRC competitions into classes. Why not have a separate beginner/rookie only class, an advanced/veteran & rookie (if they want to) class, and then maybe even an "unlimited"/open class where either can compete together and some of the restrictive/penalty/materials (but not safety) rule don't apply? Or maybe an amateur vs. open sort of classes like in other sports? You can compete in the amateur class until you have reached some measure of success (i.e. competed for 3 years, or won a Regional, Chairman's Award, etc.).

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by DeepWater

What about competition classes? I have felt for a long time now that the divide between the "have" and "have not" teams and the rookie and veteran teams is getting wider and wider. I see more and more use of sophisticated equipment like CNC and water jet machines which really increases that gap. It is really getting harder and harder for the little teams to be competitive. This one reason I really love the kitbot chassis and transmissions and drop in wheels from IFI and all of the wonderful products AndyMark markets specifically toward teams that may not have the resources to build their own. With the increase in popularity of FRC (well over 1000 teams this year) maybe it is time to start thinking of breaking up the FRC competitions into classes. Why not have a separate beginner/rookie only class, an advanced/veteran & rookie (if they want to) class, and then maybe even an "unlimited"/open class where either can compete together and some of the restrictive/penalty/materials (but not safety) rule don't apply? Or maybe an amateur vs. open sort of classes like in other sports? You can compete in the amateur class until you have reached some measure of success (i.e. competed for 3 years, or won a Regional, Chairman's Award, etc.).

That's an interesting thought that I think merits further consideration. Unfortunately there are many here who will insist that this program is NOT about the competition and that any effort to balance or classify the participants is useless. I am one that feels that "the competition" is very much needed in FIRST, if for no other reason than to draw in more "outsiders". The competition is the carrot for many of us, and it is certainly the more (and possibly only) exciting part of FIRST for those not directly participating.

While I do understand and agree that the larger goal of FIRST is to inspire sutdents to recognize their potential for a rewarding science/technical/engineering career, the action and the "more exciting parts of FIRST" are required to keep us growing and attracting new schools, communities and corporations (they want people to see those logos on the robots).

Getting back on topic, and regarding R17, I feel strongly that the rules should be as simple as possible while accomplishing the important goals of FIRST (Basically, give us the extra "fix-it-window" time or don't, but don't be so picky about how or when it is used). The GDC and rules committee should avoid long, drawn out, complicated rules for trivial issues (and I DO feel they have done an outstanding job this year overall).

Mentors and other volunteers in all areas are also desperately needed if FIRST is to continue growing and thriving. And the more difficult and frustrating you make the experience for them (us), the more difficult it will be to find and retain good people to do this work.

[Paul Copioli]

Ken & John,

I agree with the intent that both of you are trying to get at, but by not being directly associated with teams this year, you are both not really qualified to monopolize this discussion. Believe me, it is entertaining, but you are detracting from the point.

Rule R17 actually goes against the "students working with mentors" idea. We lost 5 of our 10 hours due to the time constraints put on all of us. Now, our team did meet, but there wasn't much inspiring going on. Unless you call pegging me with more darn poof balls exciting.

Can we please get back to R17? If we can get FIRST to slightly modify the rule for after week 1, that would be fantastic. My ideal, "10 hours, starting Saturday at 5:00pm and ending Thursday at 8:00am. Use them anyway you want them."

-Paul

*Note: For those of you that don't know, John is one of my closest friends in FIRST; but I still had to call him out about not working with a team this year .....

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Can we please get back to R17? If we can get FIRST to slightly modify the rule for after week 1, that would be fantastic. My ideal, "10 hours, starting Saturday at 5:00pm and ending Thursday at 8:00am. Use them anyway you want them."

Well, it's not quite what you wanted, but it's better:

http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=734

You're still only getting two five-hour windows, but at least they can now be on a Saturday, which most folks are used to not having during the season anyway. ( )

For all it's worth,

Billfred

[JVN]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Ken & John,

I agree with the intent that both of you are trying to get at, but by not being directly associated with teams this year, you are both not really qualified to monopolize this discussion. Believe me, it is entertaining, but you are detracting from the point.

I'm sorry for causing a distraction in this thread, for those interested: I split the tangent-discussion into this thread. I realized early on that this was a tangent, and should be discussed elsewhere, but got caught up in the discussion.

Sorry again.

-JV

So... new clarification/change on R17... good enough?

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by JVN

So... new clarification/change on R17... good enough?

Good direction - at least it gives us Saturdays back. Our primary programming mentor is only available on Tuesday evenings and Saturday mornings.

But there's work to be done for next year's rule. Paul promises some post-competition comments, which I look forward to seeing. I will just say now that FIRST has to define what their purpose is in limiting post-ship modifications. Once that purpose is defined, the mechanism of implementing it will become apparent, as will how the rule should read.

If the intent is to allow teams 10 hours per week, why not just say that? Does it matter if it is divided into two periods of 5 hours, or 3 periods of 3, 3, and 4 hours? We don't want to get ridiculous with it, using a chess timer to or timeclock to check in and check out each individual minute. Just come up with a way to have more flexibility.

I don't want a continuous Fix-It Window. But I don't want to be out of technical compliance with a rule simply because our schedule doesn't fit the schedule of every other team in the country, while still meeting the spirit of the rule.

[Steve W]

Bringing this thread back to life to see if Paul will now make his points known.