YMTC: Bluateam Buys Redateam's 2009 Discounted Controller

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Natchez

You Make The Call (YMTC) is a series of situations where you are the official and make the call. Please reference specific rules when applicable. The results of YMTC are not official and are for educational purposes only.

It's January 13th and Redateam's Principal, Redaprincipal, visits her FIRST team and is surprised when she sees a group of students working around a brand new NI Controller. Redaprincipal is ecstatic, "Wow, I just signed the purchase order today for that controller and you already have it! You guys are incredible!" Redacoach immediately responds, "Well, THAT controller has not arrived yet but since we did not buy a controller last year, our friends from Redateam, who we've been working with for years, agreed to buy our discounted 2009 controller from NI and give it to us if we agreed to buy our discounted 2010 controller and give it to them. It worked out great for us because we did not have the money in December to buy a controller even if Procurement could have expedited the order over Christmas AND we did not have to dismantle last year's robot, our beloved Redabot; it worked out great for Bluateam because they usually buy several controllers and instead of spending $1,500 for a controller, Bluateam only spent $750." Redaprincipal then leaves the shop with a bounce in her step, "See Y'all Later!" and then mumbles to herself, "I'm going to have these guys teach the rest of the school about coopertition."

Based on the Spirit of FIRST, YOU MAKE THE CALL!

I'm confused. So, let me get this straight.

Redateam's friends (not specified) buy Redateam's 2009 discounted controller and give it to Redateam, then Redateam buys the 2010 discounted controller and gives it to Bluateam. Is this correct?

Assuming the bold portion of the quote is meant to be Bluateam, they used Redateam's 2009 discount to buy a discounted controller for Redateam. In exchange, Redateam used their 2010 discount to buy Bluateam's controller.

Redateam did not have the money to buy their 2009 discounted controller, while Bluateam did, but had already used their discount for 2009.

Here's one question that I have: Why doesn't Bluateam have a 2010 discount? (Or are they simply buying a controller with it?)

Second question: What are the 2010 rules going to say?

2009 doesn't really have anything that I can think of offhand; as long as Bluateam and Redateam both use the right (true) cost in their cost accounting, it should be legal and in the FIRST spirit. Redateam is simply using a purchasing agent to get a controller faster; nothing illegal there. In return, Bluateam gets to use Redateam as a purchasing agent; again, nothing illegal. Nothing against the spirit of FIRST, either, that I can see.

However: Bluateam has figured out how to get two controllers for the price of one non-discounted one. Redateam is actually getting a bad deal here, because Bluateam gets (or can get) 2 controllers at $750 each (one given to Redateam) and Redateam gets 1 at $750 (given to Bluateam). I would expect, the next year or the year after, that Bluateam would return the favor to even out the number and cost of controllers.

I think that this is not in the spirit of FIRST, because while Redateam gets their controller faster, Bluateam gets 2 midseason for the price of one non-discounted one. This is a serious ethics call; I almost said violation, but that would depend on your code of ethics.

If anything, Redateam should wind up with two controllers this year, because Bluateam already has two, and Redateam only has one.

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by EricH

I think that this is not in the spirit of FIRST, because while Redateam gets their controller faster, Bluateam gets 2 midseason for the price of one non-discounted one. This is a serious ethics call; I almost said violation, but that would depend on your code of ethics.

If anything, Redateam should wind up with two controllers this year, because Bluateam already has two, and Redateam only has one.

I don't get it. If the two teams are OK with it, who are we to say what's fair? You yourself say no current rules are broken then you site potential "ethics" violations?

The last time my team gave away electronic parts at an event I don't remember thinking I needed to get anything in return. "serious call"??? "not in the spirit of FIRST"?????

wow.....

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

I don't get it. If the two teams are OK with it, who are we to say what's fair? You yourself say no current rules are broken then you site potential "ethics" violations?

The last time my team gave away electronic parts at an event I don't remember thinking I needed to get anything in return. "serious call"??? "not in the spirit of FIRST"?????

wow.....

I think the "ethics" he's citing is not whether each team gets a raw deal or not, but the purchase of more discounted cRIOs than allowed by NI by using another team.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

I don't get it. If the two teams are OK with it, who are we to say what's fair? You yourself say no current rules are broken then you site potential "ethics" violations?

The last time my team gave away electronic parts at an event I don't remember thinking I needed to get anything in return. "serious call"??? "not in the spirit of FIRST"?????

wow.....

The teams are OK with it. NI probably won't be. This is where ethics comes into play.

Let's do some math, from 3 perspectives:

Redateam: 1 controller=1 controller--trade '09 for '10. Fair trade.

NI: 1 '09 controller + 2 '10 controllers between teams = 3 controller discounts between 2 teams in 2 years. (Assuming Bluateam used their '09, that's 4 discounts between 2 teams in 2 years.) Normal business.

Trade Bluateam: 1 controller = 1 controller --same trade.
Real Bluateam: 1 controller ('10) + 1 controller ('09) - 1 controller ('09) + 1 controller ('10) = 2 controllers. Problem: They used discount '09 already. They only have one '10 discount. They have two '10 discount controllers.

From Redateam and NI (with no knowledge of subsequent transfers), this looks OK. From Bluateam, and NI if they know about the transfers (or check the "Redateam" '09 discount), this looks like Bluateam is getting one controller more than they should.

For this to be ethical (from my POV), it should be a straight gift or Redateam pays Bluateam for the '09 purchase.

Redateam simply giving Bluateam a controller, or vice-versa, or Redateam using Bluateam as a purchasing agent--none of these are illegal, in and of themselves. Put together in this way, however, I wouldn't be surprised if NI were to simply drop the discounts after finding out what's up. No charges would stick, except in the court of public opinion, but there is no reason that a system can't be cut off if it's misused.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by EricH

The teams are OK with it. NI probably won't be. This is where ethics comes into play.

Honestly how do you know if NI won't be ok with it?? If NI is offering a discount to every team, they should be more than willing to handle the reprocussions if every single team in FIRST orders a discounted controller. That is just my feeling on the situation.

I agree whole heartedly with what Rich stated above as well.

Brando

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Honestly how do you know if NI won't be ok with it??

If NI was okay with it, they'd just offer x discounted cRIOs to all FIRST teams and not have a cap in the first place.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

Honestly how do you know if NI won't be ok with it?? If NI is offering a discount to every team, they should be more than willing to handle the reprocussions if every single team in FIRST orders a discounted controller. That is just my feeling on the situation.

I agree whole heartedly with what Rich stated above as well.

Brando

This is like saying ISPs have to ensure they need to be able to handle the cumulative maximum bandwidths allotted per customer at any given time. It's cost-prohibitive and therefore practically impossible. Hence they (ISPs) estimate a realistic peak usage and account for that when laying the cable.

Originally Posted by Chris is me

If NI was okay with it, they'd just offer x discounted cRIOs to all FIRST teams and not have a cap in the first place.

I agree. Also, if word got around to NI that teams were using each other's discounts in order to acquire more cRIOs at a discounted rate, I don't doubt that NI would penalize FIRST. The justification for abusing the discount system simply does not matter.

[Rich Kressly]

Maybe I'm just VERY slow here...

Can someone please explain to me how someone gets an extra discounted controller in this scenario?

Lucien did you mean to try and find a loophole here? Am I reading this right?

The way I see it you have 2 seasons, 2 teams, and the ability to purchase four total additional CRIOs over those two years, right?

[RMiller]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

Maybe I'm just VERY slow here...

Can someone please explain to me how someone gets an extra discounted controller in this scenario?

Lucien did you mean to try and find a loophole here? Am I reading this right?

The way I see it you have 2 seasons, 2 teams, and the ability to purchase four total additional cRIOs over those two years, right?

I think at issue is that one team ends up with 3 cRIOs at discounted price.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

Maybe I'm just VERY slow here...

Can someone please explain to me how someone gets an extra discounted controller in this scenario?

Lucien did you mean to try and find a loophole here? Am I reading this right?

The way I see it you have 2 seasons, 2 teams, and the ability to purchase four total additional CRIOs over those two years, right?

Correct. But when you look at the actual numbers:

Bluateam buys one in 2009. Redateam and Bluateam both buy one in 2010. Straight purchasing.

Bluateam buys one for Redateam in 2009, traded for Redateam's 2010 controller. Purchasing agent, with fee.

4 controllers, 2 teams, 2 years. Correct total.

Now, here's what each team ends up with, who bought it, and how it ended up in their hands:
Bluateam: 1 2009 (Bluateam), 1 2010 (Bluateam), 1 2010 (Redateam, traded for Redateam's using Bluateam as a purchasing agent in 2009). 3 total cRIOs for Bluateam.
Redateam ends up with 1 2009 (bought by Bluateam using Redateam's discount, and traded for Redateam's 2010). 1 total cRIO for Redateam.

The way NI has it set up, it's supposed to be 2 apiece. There is indeed a loophole here, if you could pull it off.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by EricH

Correct. But when you look at the actual numbers:

Bluateam buys one in 2009. Redateam and Bluateam both buy one in 2010. Straight purchasing.

Bluateam buys one for Redateam in 2009, traded for Redateam's 2010 controller. Purchasing agent, with fee.

4 controllers, 2 teams, 2 years. Correct total.

Now, here's what each team ends up with, who bought it, and how it ended up in their hands:
Bluateam: 1 2009 (Bluateam), 1 2010 (Bluateam), 1 2010 (Redateam, traded for Redateam's using Bluateam as a purchasing agent in 2009). 3 total cRIOs for Bluateam.
Redateam ends up with 1 2009 (bought by Bluateam using Redateam's discount, and traded for Redateam's 2010). 1 total cRIO for Redateam.

The way NI has it set up, it's supposed to be 2 apiece. There is indeed a loophole here, if you could pull it off.

Once a team purchases a product it is theirs to do with what they please. If a team wants to buy a CRIO and throw it out of an airplane NI can't stop them. If Redateam wants to give a CRIO to Bluateam that is Redateam's business.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Once a team purchases a product it is theirs to do with what they please.

Which would be to treat it with respect in the spirit that was intended.

[Akash Rastogi]

Gotta agree with Mr. K on this one. This is FIRST, not Business Ethics 101. I also echo Andrew's latest post.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Once a team purchases a product it is theirs to do with what they please. If a team wants to buy a CRIO and throw it out of an airplane NI can't stop them. If Redateam wants to give a CRIO to Bluateam that is Redateam's business.

I don't believe this is the issue.

I believe the issue is whether or not a team (RedaTeam) has the right to offer their 'one reduced price cRio per year per team offer from NI' to another team (BlueaTeam) that they know has already used their 'one reduced price cRio per year per team from NI' offer.

I do not believe that morally and ethically we should be teaching kids to try and beat the system. Rather, instead, we should be teaching them how to work within the system to the benefit of all.

JM(NS)HO

[JaneYoung]

I'm wondering if this thread is a way to highlight the fact that more work needs to be done to understand Coopertition and what that means regarding team interactions, business actions and interactions, and the long-term effect of that understanding, misunderstanding, or ways in which loopholes that are found, can be used or exploited.