YMTC: Bluateam Buys Redateam's 2009 Discounted Controller

[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.

[EricH]

Redateam giving a cRIO to Bluateam was never the issue. Bluateam is getting, over 2 years: 1 free KOP cRIO and 3 (not 2) discounted cRIOs. Redateam is effectively being an unauthorized NI distributor at Bluateam's request--Bluateam is buying one extra discounted cRIO from Redateam. If it was given, no strings attached, no problem. Bluateam offers the help to Redateam with an IOU for the price (or not, as they choose), no problem. Bluateam offers the help on the condition that Redateam give Bluateam the current discount, questionable.

Also note that Bluateam seems to be the driving force in the agreement, and the primary beneficiary. This can raise other aspects of this exchange that could also be seen as questionable.

[Rich Kressly]

I guess this discussion and my ignorance of how on earth this single example of teams helping one another without cheating anyone out of anything is why, in 1989, Prof. Black asked me , "So, you're really gonna do this, huh?"

My original degree was in business management way back in 1989. My last semester we had the business ethics course with Prof. Black. I was already hired by the Sherwin Williams Company and I was due to enter their store management training program upon my graduation. After several class discussions and the first few weeks of class, Black stopped me leaving class and said/asked with a smile while shaking his head, "So, you're really gonna do this, huh?"

I was clueless in 1989, but I was speaking my mind and soul in the class and he knew then what I learned about myself later. I'm not a businessman and I never will be.

I lasted three months in business management. I've been teaching for a little over 16 years. I love what I do and I'm exceedingly thrilled I haven't had to engage in conversations like this in nearly two decades. I do try to maintain a sense of fairness though and I consider myself pretty vigilant about not cheating anyone out of anything.

I don't see a team here that is cutting these kinds of deals with a boatload of teams to become a "distributor" of any kind. I see teams helping one another. If NI and or FIRST were to come forward with an explicit rule about this type of exchange, then I'd certainly abide by a clear and stated rule. Until then, I'll still be ignorant of how this type of logic and thinking is formed. I'm done with this thread now. I think I'm gonna use the time to try and locate Professor Black. I really need to thank him.

[JesseK]

Rich, perhaps you could look at it from the engineering and procurement perspective of why does Bluateam really need 3 or 4 cRIOs, and why isn't Redateam questioning it? Why can't Redateam just be patient rather than going for instant gratification that borders on the shady side of business? It has nothing to do with cheating and everything to do with abusing a system that has been put in place to help each team equally. The rest of us should have a say in it because if Bluateam and Redateam screw it up, it grossly effects the rest of us.

Just like in general communication, "I'm an engineer" is no longer a valid excuse.

As a side note, the polarization of the poll and the two colors representing each side is irony at its worst

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

I don't see a team here that is cutting these kinds of deals with a boatload of teams to become a "distributor" of any kind.

... And here is the crux of the problem. While Redateam and Blueateam may not become a distributor, someone else might. I could even envision (*Shudder*) a team using this as a fundraiser ("hey, lets buy up all the cRios' that teams won't be buying ... at the discount ... and sell them on eBay for twice the price").

As I said before, it's about morals and ethics and what we really want to teach these kids.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

I don't see a team here that is cutting these kinds of deals with a boatload of teams to become a "distributor" of any kind. I see teams helping one another. If NI and or FIRST were to come forward with an explicit rule about this type of exchange, then I'd certainly abide by a clear and stated rule. Until then, I'll still be ignorant of how this type of logic and thinking is formed.

Rich -

Don't worry. You have it exactly right.

Let's be very clear here. There are no rules violations. There are no ethics violations.

First off, any rules regarding use of the cRIO for the 2009 FRC competition are now obsolete and irrelevant. Those rules applied only to the 2009 competition, and not to any future events or activities. So even if there were a 2009 season rule against this practice (which there was not), it is no longer in effect and does not matter. The rules for the 2010 season have (obviously) not yet been published. It is intuitively obvious that neither team can be in violation of the 2010 rules. Ergo, there is no rules violation.

So let's move on to the ethics discussion. The arguments presented so far regarding a violation of some mythical ethics standards are based on assumptions, not facts.

The facts are simple: NI will sell one discounted cRIO unit to each team per year. NI will sell multiple full-price cRIO units to each team per year. NI has not made any statement about their specific motivations for these sales options. NI does not include any post-sales restrictions on the use, reuse, resale, or redistribution of purchased cRIO units other than those found in the standard cRIO Terms Of Sale. NI has not publicized any statement of prohibition against a team doing anything they want with their cRIO once they have purchased it.

It is important to note that NI has not said "we are making a special offer available so that each FRC team can obtain exactly one additional cRIO unit per year." Nor have they said "we are making these available so that each team will use the additional cRIO exclusively for their own development purposes." If they had, then we might have additional information to explain the desires and motives behind the offer. But such statements have not been made. Without any such statements, we have NO information to support any judgment. Without an ability to form a judgment, no conclusion about a putative ethics violation can be made.

To date, all the arguments against the ethics of this trade have followed the same basic formula: NI has not offered a particular reason for the discount offer. Lacking a stated reason, someone speculates on a possible rationale. Based on that speculation, they then create a mythic set of ethics to accompany the deal. Finally, they superimpose their (misguided?) ethics on NI and insist that their own ethics be recognized as those of NI.

Unfortunately, all of these arguments have the same fundamental weakness: they are based on speculations unsupported by any available facts. Statements like "The way NI has it set up, it's supposed to be…" are without any basis in fact. As such they are meaningless conjectures, with no more value than the unsupported speculations. Any conclusions drawn from them are equally weak. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am loath to accuse anyone of a violation of any ethical or moral standards based on logic this faulty.

-dave




....