Multiples 2007

[LindsayKnowlton]

Well, I might as well tell my opinion on this issue.

When I saw the Niagara Triplets at GLR last year, I was personally a bit... well, pissed off. Along with other people on my team. They had gotten really far in the competition through collaboration that other teams didn't have. I realized that this a choice to collaborate and to make the same/very similar robots, but there were teams very set on making their own. In a way, I found this to be an unfair advantage for the other teams that worked alone, especially for the newer teams with not as much experience. I read the thread in CD right after GLR about the triplets, and my reaction was around the lines of, "...oh. That's why."

I felt bad for a while. I did want teams that weren't as fortunate in terms of funding to get a chance to compete with a working robot fit for competition. However, time passed, and I realized there were other ways to get past obstacles, especially involving money that didn't involve making twins or triplets of a robot, even if it was cheaper. There are many ways to fundraise if a team really applies itself, and even if teams do collaborate, I don't think they should make the same robot. It might be harder work and harder to pay for, but I personally find it more worth it. Teams will take more pride in themselves not only as a team, but also on an individual level. It might sound idealistic, but if one really believes that they don't have to settle for the easy way out, that attitude will take someone far.

I know plenty of people on 226, especially the veterans, have a lot of pride for their team. I do, too. Even though our collaboration with two other teams is a healthy working relationship from what I've heard, I'm still disappointed that we are part of a triplicy this year. It might be selfish to feel this way, but we just like to stand out as a team, not just with our tshirts and our mascot, but with our robot. It just feels so... cheap to do this, in my opinion. We could have easily collaborated without copying. I know I'm not the only person who feels this way. I have talked to people on my team, current students and alums, and they aren't the happiest about it. But obviously it's too late to go back on the plan, and we just have to do the best with what we did.

It sounds like this was an idea to make us look better in the FIRST community, to have a greater chance at winning Chairmans, or to even win the actual competition. But that's not everything. It's not all about looking better and getting respect, it's about doing what most people on the team want to do most, especially the students; build an awesome robot. We're happy to have our robot out there, no matter how much it breaks down or malfunctions. I'd rather have a robot that was crappy that my team made themselves, and only for themselves, rather than a robot that was made to perfection that was cloned a few times to be used by another teams.

I also like the variety of robots. If everyone starts following this multiplicity trend, there will be less unique robots in general. And not all ideas will go through, especially in a multi-team collaboration. Sometimes it's the idea that everyone is against except for a few people that happens to work for the best, and ideas are more likely to go through when less people are working together. Yes, there are more ideas generated in the a multi-team environment, but if more ideas could become reality if each team made their robot differently.

I'm not completely against collaboration and making a few elements of the robot a bit similar, but making clones I am not too pleased about. It's about finding a balance: sharing a design of a part of a robot, but yet, having enough to make it look uniquely like your team's.