"Instructions are for people who don't know what they're doing."

[EricH]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

(Quick... what wire gauge, colours, and breaker size did you need for hooking up a CIM?)
[...]
P.S. Those who know the rules, know that there is not a "quick" answer to the above question. The only requirement specifically for a CIM is that you need to use a Victor speed controller, rather than a Spike.... technically you could use a 20A breaker and 18ga wire... although it would be wise to use a 40amp breaker and something a bit heavier than the minimum 12ga required in the rules. And something a lot of tech inspectors (usually rookie techs)don't realize... the wires only need to be red/black (or that other approved colour combo that I always forget) up to the Victors... after that they can (and, I suggest, should) be whatever you want them to be.

I have to ask, as someone who's been around a while... Which year's ruleset, exactly?

Yeah, I know they haven't exactly changed in a while.

[Anna B.]

Our team usually tests our students on rules about the robot and the game before going to competitions. If you don't get a 100% on all the tests (we usually have 3 or 4), then you aren't allowed to be in the pits. Our mentor also incorporates questions that the judges might ask the team on the tests, which is a pretty good idea.

[hallk]

We basically don't let the kids do "any of the fun stuff" until they read the manual. But in FIRST it is all fun. We have found that what works best for us is meeting for a short while after kickoff to discuss is good but keep it short so that people can go home and study up on the rules.

Originally Posted by Jeff Pahl

In general, I try not to let team members that have not read the rules get too far down the wrong path, but after once or twice when they find out that the last several hours of their work is no good because they didn't read the rules, they get the idea that they really should read them.

Originally Posted by dtengineering

I certainly don't expect the students to know all the rules. Especially the "little picky ones" like how to build a bumper, or ones that get modified on the Q&A forum.

Out of curiosity, do other teams have the position of "rule guru?" I've had the idea (can't be original, someone has to have thought of this!) before of letting an interested student be the team's rule guru, and be in charge of knowing the rules to the detail, and being very familiar with said rules should a question arise. That way, during build, any sub team can just ask the rule guy if their idea is legal or not.

(That being said: It's still incredibly important that all build or competition members have at minimum a general understanding of can and can't be done.)

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Speedfiend

Out of curiosity, do other teams have the position of "rule guru?" I've had the idea (can't be original, someone has to have thought of this!) before of letting an interested student be the team's rule guru, and be in charge of knowing the rules to the detail, and being very familiar with said rules should a question arise. That way, during build, any sub team can just ask the rule guy if their idea is legal or not.

(That being said: It's still incredibly important that all build or competition members have at minimum a general understanding of can and can't be done.)

Some teams do, and it is recommended by FIRST. Now, I would actually suggest two. Here's why.

The first guru has the responsibility to track the Game Manual. Their job is to read the manual, read all the updates, and maintain a current copy of the manual in some form. Twice a week or so, the rules may suddenly change slightly for clarity or to stop something that wasn't intended. Guru 1 needs to track that.

The second guru works alongside Guru 1. Guru 2 knows the manual well, but not necessarily as well as Guru 1. Guru 2 tracks the official Q&A. Guru 2 has to filter through the mess of questions that could have been answered in the manual and finds the relevant information. Interpretations made in Q&A are passed on to Guru 1 as needed. Guru 2 may also be the team's authorized Q&A poster, so they can ask questions that haven't been answered yet that will affect the team.

Both of these are "full-time", as in, the Q&A updates daily or faster (Guru 2) while Guru 1 gets questions from the team. I can do both, but it does help to have another.

I guess what I'm saying is that one guru takes care of team-related/general rules questions and the other deals with interpretation/how is this going to be called situations. (And for the latter, the YMTC sub-forum in Rules/Strategy can be pretty helpful in figuring out what rules will soon be clarified. The Rules/Strategy forum can also be handy in general.)

[Jeff Pahl]

Originally Posted by Speedfiend

Out of curiosity, do other teams have the position of "rule guru?" I've had the idea (can't be original, someone has to have thought of this!) before of letting an interested student be the team's rule guru, and be in charge of knowing the rules to the detail, and being very familiar with said rules should a question arise. That way, during build, any sub team can just ask the rule guy if their idea is legal or not.

(That being said: It's still incredibly important that all build or competition members have at minimum a general understanding of can and can't be done.)

It seems like we always have one, usually appointed by the lead designers who don't want to read the rules themselves Some years it works better than others, depending on the personalities involved.

Where it seems to run into more problems is with the "picky little rules". The team will ask if their idea to attach the bumpers is legal, but will not ask if using particle board to build the bumper is. The "rules guru" almost has to constantly inspect the work in progress to catch the little things that happen.

All that said, it can work well if the right person is given that responsibility. My opinion is that it fits well with the title "Chief Engineer" or with a Senior who has passed along design responsibility to "the next generation" and who is serving as "Advisor". Giving the "rules guru" position to the shy Freshman in the corner has never seemed to work out real well.

Originally Posted by Jeff Pahl

Giving the "rules guru" position to the shy Freshman in the corner has never seemed to work out real well.

Yeah, totally makes sense. Also agree with the personalities part, as my freshman year in high school we didn't have anyone to fill that position (and I doubt we will with the team I'm currently working with, 1595. But who knows, we shall see!)

[Dan Zollman]

Originally Posted by Tom Line

Therefore, I created a "competence matrix". Every single tool or trade is listed. Wiring, programming, etc. In order for any student to use them, they have to have proved prior competence - and that includes understanding info from the manual. This was my attempt at improving safety a bit.

They have to be certified by another certified user. We'll probably go a step further next year and create an actual test for each item.

This sounds very interesting to me.
Although it could be hard to keep under control, it sounds like a powerful strategy for several reasons:
-It gives students personal responsibility for, and therefore a stake in, the quality of the team's work and skill.
-By making students think about the competence of others, it gives them responsibility for their own knowledge/skill.
-This could lead to students teaching other students, and since one learns from teaching, both sides will learn. Even though that may already take place all the time, a formal peer-certification system could further that.
Perhaps it would be just as good without having a test. Or, the same could be done with a test, but the test could be given or graded (even created) by certified students.

The certification idea never occurred to me before--I'm going to write that down somewhere.

[Warren Boudreau]

In past years, we have used Hot Potato to create tests for the students.

One is a rules test and one is a robot test.

They would have three chances to pass or they got to wave to us as we left for the tournaments. I don't think that ever happened. By the third time around, even the most recalcitrant would realize that they needed to look over the rules or risk missing out on all of the fun.

Of course the tests were tough but fair, since I was the one who had to make them.

[KathieK]

Originally Posted by Speedfiend

Out of curiosity, do other teams have the position of "rule guru?" I've had the idea (can't be original, someone has to have thought of this!) before of letting an interested student be the team's rule guru, and be in charge of knowing the rules to the detail, and being very familiar with said rules should a question arise. That way, during build, any sub team can just ask the rule guy if their idea is legal or not.

I am anal about following rules. I don't like grey areas. It's either black or white for me. When I give my NEMO sessions I always recommend that teams find somebody on the team who is like me (and there usually is SOMEONE) and ask them to be the rules guru. They are responsible for bringing the updates to each meeting and announcing them to the team, for creating manual(s) with the rules in them and updating them when necessary. The team is also responsible for knowing the updates, etc., but the rules person REALLY knows the rules and can be the person who can look it up quickly.

[GaryVoshol]

I would suggest that you might have 2 or 3 or even 4 rules gurus, each responsible for one aspect of the rules. I was the self-appointed* guru for game and general robot design last year. Every Team Update that came out, I wrote an email summarizing the changes. But I didn't know electrical or pneumatics, so I couldn't make meaningful comments on those areas.

* - Self appointed, but team accepted. They didn't want to do it!

[EricH]

Come to think of it, the goal would be to have the entire team be rules gurus...

Like that's ever going to happen for every team.

[Stu Bloom]

Originally Posted by EricH

Come to think of it, the goal would be to have the entire team be rules gurus...

Like that's ever going to happen for every team.

Don't you mean for ANY team? I have refereed over 20 FIRST events and I am still amazed every year by the number of drive team members that don't know some of the most basic rules. I will say it is usually much better at the championship event, but even there some of the students AND mentors don't know the rules.

So ... sorry - it's a little early for this ... and you WILL hear me say it again ...

PLEASE READ THE RULES!

[samir13k]

Originally Posted by gorrilla

as in the machining tools? or all the tools?

that sounds great, but some people might feel left out.

Actually 1501 started this today, its called our safety card program. Each machine has a card near it with the members name. Your name has to be punched before you are allowed to use it. Violators will be punished to the full extent of having to clean up the shop and vacuum. (till we find something worse...) In order to get certified to use the tool, you just have to tell a mentor that you want to get oriented, and they will teach you how to use it properly immediately.