Cheating in FRC

[Monochron]

Originally Posted by aldaeron

I saw this post on Reddit too and remember there being a great comment about perceived cheating that was not actually cheating (since the Reddit OP was a first year). The Reddit reply had mentioned things like working on a practice bot, working on code or working on a mechanism within the WITHHOLDING ALLOWANCE. To a new member these may appear to be "cheating" though are allowed by last year's rules.

In the reddit post he mentions that his head mentor countered the accusations of cheating by saying "as long as the kids are inspired and having fun", leading me to think that the head mentors knows it to be cheating. But you are right, we definitely don't know for sure.

[gegozi]

I feel sorry for this student. The right thing to do is to speak to FIRST.
If you, the student, are reading this, you can PM me if you don't feel comfortable. If you are near by and you would like, I can talk to my team mates and make you part of our team.
There is no pressure, but as part of the FIRST community, I am disappointed with your team mates for cheating.
Gal

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

It doesn't sit well with me either, but it is the reality of the "Chairman's game".

We're relatively new to Chairman's (only submitted twice). My advice to our Chairman's team (students and mentors) is be proud of our actual accomplishments and "stick to our guns".

You, no doubt, also have much to be proud of with your team's accomplishments.

Although it is hard, and often doesn't feel fair, I like Chairman's to focus more positive energy internally to our team, rather than bring in potentially negative energy from outside the team.

That is our way to cope, YMMV.

-Mike

You submit for Chairman's enough and follow the sport enough to notice that awarding dubious submissions degrades the quality and integrity of the award, indirectly allowing for more latitude that can lead to more dubious submissions being awarded that create a negative feedback loop that has brought us to a thread like this... a thread that is in no way surprising to me and elicits no real reaction from me. You put your ear to the walls enough to hear some pretty absurd stuff re: chairman's award. You eventually become deaf to it, or at least tone it out in the way most people tone out a screaming infant in a theme park (I am not one of those people in both the literal and metaphorical uses of this phrase).

[dradel]

At some point people need to raise the bar back up. If that means turning in your mentor/s then so be it. Folks need to hold themselves to a higher standard. I understand that people have come to expect this type of behavior, but would anyone say it's ok? By making statements like I'm not as worried that the team goes over the six week build time is asinine.
Strive to be the best person possible, you may find that others will follow your lead !

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by The_ShamWOW88

Unfortunately it's true.

I guide our Chairman's team and I set it from the outset with the students. I'm just there to help them put everything together. They write the paper, they make the video, they prepare and practice their presentation.

I still believe that the majority of teams do the same.

I think we are talking about different things.

I was talking about teams making false claims in their chairmans submissions.

It sounds like you are talking about mentors working on submissions/presentations.

I like mentors to be a part of every step of the process.

It sounds like you do not.

Mentors working with students on awards is not cheating.

Teams falsifying information on awards is cheating.

-Mike

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

It doesn't sit well with me either, but it is the reality of the "Chairman's game".

We're relatively new to Chairman's (only submitted twice). My advice to our Chairman's team (students and mentors) is be proud of our actual accomplishments and "stick to our guns".

You, no doubt, also have much to be proud of with your team's accomplishments.

Although it is hard, and often doesn't feel fair, I like Chairman's to focus more positive energy internally to our team, rather than bring in potentially negative energy from outside the team.

That is our way to cope, YMMV.

-Mike

Lest people think I think I'm ok with the "game" - a large portion of the judges' jobs is being a detective to find the truth. So, the good news that goes along with it is, usually folks can tell.

[MamaSpoldi]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I think we are talking about different things.

I was talking about teams making false claims in their chairmans submissions.

It sounds like you are talking about mentors working on submissions/presentations.

I like mentors to be a part of every step of the process.

It sounds like you do not.

Mentors working with students on awards is not cheating.

Teams falsifying information on awards is cheating.

-Mike

I agree that the role of a mentor includes reviewing and making suggestions for improvements for award submissions, just like they would in relation to building the robot or writing software. But a mentor that is suggesting that breaking the rules (by reporting incorrect information... or by working outside the build season) is OK because the kids are still "inspired" is seriously confused. I don't think that word means what you think that word means. Receiving accolades for cheating is not inspirational... it is sad and disappointing. It is also NOT Gracioius Professionalism.

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

I think we are talking about different things.

I was talking about teams making false claims in their chairmans submissions.

It sounds like you are talking about mentors working on submissions/presentations.

I like mentors to be a part of every step of the process.

It sounds like you do not.

Mentors working with students on awards is not cheating.

Teams falsifying information on awards is cheating.

-Mike

Easy friend, we're on the same side.

I am in favor of mentoring, I stated guiding did I not?

I must not have been clear enough in stating that I do believe too much "hands on" mentoring can lead to problems where students feel like they aren't contributing. Not that this happens all the time.

I do mentor. I do assist my students where needed. I do not tell them what to do.

I apologize for not understanding your point correctly. Yes, falsifying content is a problem.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by The_ShamWOW88

Easy friend, we're on the same side.

I am in favor of mentoring, I stated guiding did I not?

I must not have been clear enough in stating that I do believe too much "hands on" mentoring can lead to problems where students feel like they aren't contributing. Not that this happens all the time.

I do mentor. I do assist my students where needed. I do not tell them what to do.

I apologize for not understanding your point correctly. Yes, falsifying content is a problem.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, it sounded to me like you believed mentors being involved in "writing the paper" or "making the video" was against the rules.

Thanks for clarifying.

-Mike

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by MamaSpoldi

I agree that the role of a mentor includes reviewing and making suggestions for improvements for award submissions, just like they would in relation to building the robot or writing software. But a mentor that is suggesting that breaking the rules (by reporting incorrect information... or by working outside the build season) is OK because the kids are still "inspired" is seriously confused. I don't think that word means what you think that word means. Receiving accolades for cheating is not inspirational... it is sad and disappointing. It is also NOT Gracioius Professionalism.

Totally agree.

If a mentor suggest breaking rules is acceptable, they are not promoting the values of FIRST, nor are they setting a common-sense "good example" for our next generation of bright young minds.

I think a lot of adults are decently rational people. I honestly believe the exact scenario of a "mentor that is suggesting breaking the rules is OK because the kids are inspired" is not a common one.

Your opinion may vary.

I just know too many decent-to-outright-incredible adults in FRC to believe that blatant cheating is an even semi-common occurrence in this program.

-Mike

[Dinokaiz2]

OP of this CD thread here-

Sorry I wasn't online to read some of the suggestions about things I should've done differently in bringing this issue to light. I've been out all day since I posted this (out at robotics, actually), but now that I'm here, I'd like to answer a few questions.

First of all, I didn't PM the OP over Reddit before posting this. I apologize, it was absolutely an error on my part. I'm going to PM him ASAP because him being blind-sided by this would be terrible.

In spite of this, I don't think I'll be taking down this thread. I didn't mean at all for it to be a public shaming. I meant it to bring this to light, because I really think it's my duty as a fellow FIRSTer to do everything in my power to remedy this situation. It's a tragedy, but IMO, if I stand by, I'm as much in the wrong as the cheaters.

The main reason for this post is to get anyone who knows anything about this situation to please contact a FIRST representative.

When I posted this thread, I was truly concerned for the well-being of this team's members. As it was said earlier in this thread, what's worse than the cheating is the suppression of members who disagree with the mentor's philosophies. I understood when I made this thread that it could hurt the member of their team who posted on Reddit, and that it was possible that it was the OP's job to deal with this, not mine, so I shouldn't butt in. But I weighed that with the suppressive behavior of the mentors and the fact that the OP seemed genuinely concerned. I definitely don't think that the OP was simply unaware of the rules, despite him/her being a rookie. Contributing to that feeling is the fact that someone posted a list of allowed actions that could be misconstrued as cheating, and the OP didn't respond, instead sticking to his/her claims. I could be wrong, but I think it sufficient evidence.

If the OP sees this and is discontent with what I've done, I'm truly sorry for any trouble I've caused you, but this issue needs to stay in the light. If the only person it impacted was you, I would be in the wrong and would absolutely take down this thread. However, it seems that, because you're a "powerhouse team" that often wins regionals, your team's cheating is impacting other teams from your region and teams you meet at World Championships.

In other words, I don't believe that my actions can hurt more than they can help. This thread wont be coming down, at least, not because of me.


UPDATE: I was unable to PM the OP on Reddit because not only was the post deleted, but the account he posted it with as well. I am currently left with no ways within my power to directly contact the OP, anonymous or not. I'm desperately sorry if you've suffered consequences for my actions, OP, but I felt it my duty to do something about it.

[jkoritzinsky]

OP used a throwaway account on Reddit, so the chances of being able to let him/her know were already pretty low.

[D.gimon]

Hello Everyone,

Intriguing thread.

FRC prepares High School kids for the real world (and I believe that all aspects of the literal program do that)......."Coopertition, Gracious Professionalism, Safety Regimen, Honour System (bagging), etc.

Truly great ideals to be teaching our kids (and reminding ourselves of).

So FRC is, in essence, a microcosm of the world around us (Rules, Guidelines, Philosophies).

However, the world is comprised of a vast multitude of personalities with the same number of opinions and interpretations of the Rules, Guidelines, and Philosophies.

The ultimate goals of these opinions and interpretations vary widely (some hold on to the literal intentions while others do not).

One only has to attend any of the events and look closely at the various robots to see what I mean.

FRC (Rules, Guidelines, Philosophies) mirrors the real world (Laws, Constitutions, Charters of Rights and Freedoms, etc).

Have a close look at the real world and honestly come to your own conclusions regarding this thread.

As much as a level playing field is stressed in FRC, "It ain't there!", and it's no fault of FIRST. Not every team has the same funding or mentor resources. Not every team will embrace the literal meanings of the FIRST principles (once again, look at what's going on in the real world).

On the bright side, we pride ourselves (regardless of our regional finishes) on being one of the many teams that abides by the intended interpretations of the FIRST principles and continue to churn out (as many of you do) honest, hard working, safety oriented, and proud graduates of this worthwhile program who will make a difference in the real world.

Sincerely,
DG

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

So I'll offer up an alternative solution. Find a mentor or volunteer on here from an area different from yours. One that doesn't interact with your team or your events, and one that doesn't work for FIRST. Private message them (from a new anonymous account if you feel it necessary) and ask if they would be willing to advise you.

Great suggestion, I will certainly offer to be that contact. I am a chief volunteer but I am not a FIRST employee. I am a member of a HOF team and a 21 year team veteran.

Every year I will hear allegations of a very similar story. It is rare, extremely rare, for a team to flaunt rules. Mentors are not perfect and they sometimes misunderstand the rules. Young team members are also capable of this same misunderstanding. Usually, in short order, the mentor and/or student will see the error of their ways and correct their behavior. I can tell you that Chairman's teams are accused of misstating facts in their presentations every year and likely every event. This is an indication of how important the award is and how desirable for teams to achieve.

In spite of the desirability, many teams still do not make the attempt. When a team actively pursues Chairman's, it affects the way they think and make decisions. When a difficult decision comes before the team, they start to think "What would a Chairman's team do?" This is why I encourage every team to pursue the Chairman's award. Every team thinks they don't do enough to win, but you can't win if you don't try.
Congratulations to Team 597 the Wolverines of LA, 2015 Champs winners. Welcome to the Hall of Fame!

[gblake]

I'm just a bit surprised that when I skimmed through this thread, I didn't see anyone point out that everything read in the Internet should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The Reddit OP could very well be a troll doing a little fishing. For me, until the story is corroborated by credible, independent evidence; it's interesting, but not worth more than a 6-word reply that says, "If this is real, contact FIRST."

Some of the follow-on and side-discussions here have been valuable, but when I imagine the OP, I'm as likely to imagine someone laughing, as I am to imagine someone distressed.

Don't jump into the boat folks... Know what I mean? Use due diligence before putting your faith into internet heroes, martyrs, rabble-rousers, or victims.

If that due diligence shows that a real need for action exists, *then* grab the pitchforks, and light the torches.

Blake