YMTC: Bluateam Buys Redateam's 2009 Discounted Controller

[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 Bluateam, 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!

[Chris is me]

What rule would that be breaking? Under 2009 rules I don't see the problem with it... I just don't get anything controversial about that kind of thing? They both end up using their one discounted controller credit and both end up one controller richer.

[Vikesrock]

I think the "controversy" here is if this is illegal based on some contract between a team and NI when purchasing a cRIO at discount (Our team has not done this so I don't know what if any paperwork is involved). A similar question would be whether it is taking advantage of NI's generosity even if it is legal.

Chris,

They are not both using a controller credit. The way I read it is that Bluateam already used their 2009 credit and is somehow purchasing an additional controller using Redateam's 2009 credit and giving it to Redateam. Redateam then purchases a controller using their 2010 credit and gives it to Bluateam.

The end result is that Redateam's 2009 credit is used to get Bluateam a $750 cRIO where it would have gone unused otherwise.

[Chris is me]

Ah, I'll take a better look then.

So there are these credits at work:

BLUE 09 RED 09
BLUE 10 RED 10

Blue's used their 09 credit.

XXXX XX RED 09
BLUE 10 RED 10

So they'd buy Red 09's cRIO in exchange for getting the Red 10 cRio. This is different than what I thought, where Blue would use their Blue 10 slot and give it to Red or something like that, so both teams would end up with one burnt credit and one additional cRio.

I can see the issue here. I don't really know what to say about it, it's clever and within the rules but it is taking advantage of NI and circumventing a discount restriction. Couldn't that be fraud or something?

[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.

[Natchez]

Originally Posted by EricH

Assuming the bold portion of the quote is meant to be Bluateam, ...

BUSTED! Eric, nice catch ... Redacoach's quote has been corrected.

Sorry ... I really did read, reread, reread, reread ... I should have reread again,
Lucien

[AdamHeard]

I say anything that is saving teams money during this time is perfectly appropriate.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I say anything that is saving teams money during this time is perfectly appropriate.

I wouldn't blanket "anything" as ok, especially not at the expense of a sponsor. Both teams have a 2009 controller, and during the early build season I'm pretty sure the teams can survive on just one controller. I don't think it's that difficult to remove only the cRIO from the old robot and use it for 2010. Bluateam "usually buy several controllers". Well, then they should pay full price rather than taking advantage of the system.

Thus, neither team is going out of its way or sacrificing to help the other -- they're simply using what's already available to them to circumvent the simpler solution. Additionally, unless Bluateam is using all of those controllers to demonstrate old robots during the build season, it's my opinion that this situation is very excessive. Even more, since Bluateam did it this year, they'll probably do it again in the future. Bluateam is taking advantage of the system, Redateam is an accomplice, thus both should be stricken from being allowed to win any awards.

Why should FIRST reward this behavior?

[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.

[EricH]

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

An analogy should explain this a bit better.

You work in a store that sells widgets. The store offers a discount on widgets as follows: once per week, each customer in a certain group gets one widget for half price (with a discount coupon). One week, a customer comes in and gets their discount. They return later the same week with a second discount coupon, and say they're buying for another customer (whose coupon it is). The next week, both customers come in and buy a widget apiece using that week's coupon. But, out in the parking lot, you see the customer who the widget bought for them give the widget that they just bought to the other customer. Would you be asking questions?

Sure, NI's probably able to handle everybody getting a discounted controller. If they weren't, I'd expect that they'd have less of a discount. But I'm reasonably sure that they'd reasonably expect that each team buy one discounted one and keep one discounted one, not buy one and give it to another team because they did the same thing with your code.