paper: Stop the Stop Build

[marshall]

Originally Posted by chapman1

I oppose the elimination of Stop Build Day for two reasons:

1) One of the many benefits of FRC that I have touted is that kids are given a nearly impossible deadline of six weeks in which a robot must be envisioned, prototyped, built, tested and made ready for competition. "Nearly impossible" is the deadline that most often exists in real life. It's good practice.

2) From the perspective of a small, underfunded rural school team, eliminating the Stop Build Day would be one more way of favoring the larger, better funded urban teams:

2a) Our team has only a handful of mentors, and all are actively employed. Some have to take vacation time in order to attend after-school work sessions or to participate in weekday events. Further, when the competition season finally ends, we have to spend the next several months catching up with our personal and professional lives. Extending the build season would make it nearly impossible for us to ever catch up. We would lose mentors.

Similarly, students at our school are more often than not involved in multiple sports, drama, Business Professionals of America (BPA) and other activities - because there isn't enough kids to go around. They too do not need more time commitment.

2b) The larger, urban teams, with ready access to large corporate sponsorship already have an advantage by virtue of funding and resources. We drool at many of the machines we see, all CAD-designed and with parts cut by sponsors' waterjets. Larger teams can accomplish more in a day than can small teams - even without the funding & technology gaps.

Yet, smaller teams can still compete today - despite the "head start" the larger teams have - because their advantage is held to a specific period of time. If the amount of build days is extended any more, FRC might as well plan on an "elite" team-only competition - the gap between elites and the rest of the field would become so wide that smaller teams would have little hope of successfully competing.

__________________

Did you read Jim's paper at least?

[chapman1]

Originally Posted by marshall

Did you read Jim's paper at least?

Yep. I get it that many teams build two robots to get around the time limit. I get it that many will show up with 29.9 lbs. of improvements at every competition.

Did you take more than 10 seconds to actually consider my points and perspective?

[marshall]

Originally Posted by chapman1

Yep. I get it that many teams build two robots to get around the time limit. I get it that many will show up with 29.9 lbs. of improvements at every competition.

Did you take more than 10 seconds to actually consider my points and perspective?

I have in fact. I have taken over ten years to consider my own perspective on the inevitable death of stop build day. I think Jim's paper does a great job of explaining all of the ways the system is currently broken and the compromised solution he lays out is more than acceptable to me. Your response did not lay out a structured argument to refute his claims but yet runs contrary to them, which is why I asked the question that I did. It wasn't meant as an insult though I see now how it could have been misconstrued as one.

[FarmerJohn]

Originally Posted by chapman1

Yep. I get it that many teams build two robots to get around the time limit. I get it that many will show up with 29.9 lbs. of improvements at every competition.

Did you take more than 10 seconds to actually consider my points and perspective?

The reality is this: Teams who have the means to do so will work up until the last minute possible every time. These teams will likely be more competitive than those who stop working before the competition. That is a fact of life.

All eliminating stop build does is provide teams who didn't previously have the means to keep working up until the last minute possible the means to do so. This will not require anyone work more than they want to, but instead gives them the *choice* to do so, a choice many would not have otherwise. The top teams are still going to be the top teams. It may move some lower end teams up, but at the end of the day a non-top team isn't going to fare any worse on their own than they would have with stop build. This does not make it worse for teams who don't want to work more, it only opens up the opportunity to do so to teams who didn't have that opportunity before.

And before someone says "if we don't work more we'll get left behind while everyone else gets better", congrats, that's part of life. This is a competition. If you don't care about being competitive, great. Good for you. You don't need to work any longer than you'd like to. If your argument is that you won't have the means to work longer, but you still wanna be competitive, join FTC. Or VEX. Or any other competition. FRC isn't the end-all be-all best robotics program for everyone, but it is a program with a lot of potential for those who are willing and able to put in the work. The program shouldn't be limited just because of a few who would benefit more by being in another program.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

... This is a competition. ...

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't an on-the-field competition.
FRC *includes* an on-the-field competition.

[Rachel Lim]

Originally Posted by gblake

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't a competition.
FRC *includes* a competition.

I beg to disagree.
*FRC* is a competition.
*FIRST* includes a competition (FRC).


There may be methods to pursue the FIRST mission that do not include a competition.
However, the method FRC chose does include a competition.
It's in the name.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by gblake

I beg to disagree.
FRC isn't an on-the-field competition.
FRC *includes* an on-the-field competition.

I know what you're trying to say, but I think this is a bit pedantic and derailing. We are discussing a change to the rules of the robotics competition, so we are of course focused on the impact this competition rules change has to the robotics competition.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I know what you're trying to say, but I think this is a bit pedantic and derailing. We are discussing a change to the rules of the robotics competition, so we are of course focused on the impact this competition rules change has to the robotics competition.

Another point of view would be that a discussion that doesn't include the competition's place in the bigger picture, is a discussion likely to include mistakes.

The post I replied to appeared to tell someone introducing a bit of the bigger picture, that anything less than single-mindedly dedicating a team to winning FRC's competition is a mistake.

I think we can be confident FIRST HQ has an eye on the bigger picture that includes FIRST's primary mission, *and* on the health of the important competition that supports that primary mission.

Why not ensure both are emphasized in this conversation? I'm guessing that FIRST HQ and CD will find the result more persuasive than they would otherwise.

If I was derailing, please give me credit for trying to derail us onto a set of tracks that takes us to our destination, not past it.

Blake

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by gblake

...that anything less than single-mindedly dedicating a team to winning FRC's competition is a mistake.

...

If I was derailing, please give me credit for trying to derail us onto a set of tracks that takes us to our destination, not past it.

Blake

[nobrakes8]

Originally Posted by marshall

Did you read Jim's paper at least?

I think the point over mentor burnout is a big point that Jim's paper kind of ignored but semi-addressed with the 8 hour open bag time per week; which is something I think I'd support.

The one thing I was unclear on is what is the purpose behind FIRST considering this? Is it because the stop build is almost artificial anyway because of how many teams have a second robot and/or use a ton of time with the weight withholding? If that's the driving force behind it then I think Jim's solution is pretty solid.

I feel like if it's to increase competitiveness of the events then it's probably not the right solution. I think the solution needs to be two-fold. First, somehow as a community we need to find a solution to improve competitiveness of the lower to mid-tier teams that struggle (maybe a strong eMentoring program or something). Then, I think FRC needs to look at historical performance of teams and maybe put restrictions on teams that win 80-90% of their regionals/districts (maybe only allow a 100lb robot and limit motors, sensors or envelop size compared to the rest of the teams). But, I don't see the point penalizing the historically successful teams without doing something to improve the struggling teams; because that'll just lower the overall quality of the events.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by nobrakes8

Then, I think FRC needs to look at historical performance of teams and maybe put restrictions on teams that win 80-90% of their regionals/districts (maybe only allow a 100lb robot and limit motors, sensors or envelop size compared to the rest of the teams).

Kinda cherry picking with the quote but this will definitely create two different classifications for teams. I'm torn on the idea of different classes for teams within FRC... part of me thinks it could be a good thing but part of me also thinks it's going to create unforeseen problems worse than the championshplit.

Originally Posted by jman4747

So it seems one disagreement we have lies with the question of whether or not meeting more often over a short period of time is more stressful than meeting less often over a longer period of time.

This is an interesting observation. All I know is that 9 women can have a baby in a month.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jman4747

So it seems one disagreement we have lies with the question of whether or not meeting more often over a short period of time is more stressful than meeting less often over a longer period of time.

I would assume most people who want to keep the bag beleve the latter is more stressful?

There's a couple of disagreements, I think.
--More often over shorter time, or less often over longer time? (Assumes the same number of meetings, or very close.)
--More meetings over more time, or same meetings over same time? (Assumes that teams maintain current schedule and simply move crunch time later.)

I would suspect that the disconnect is this: Teams that want to keep the bag are likely to assume that the SECOND part is the key. Teams that want to ditch the bag are likely to assume the FIRST part is the key. Basically, number of meetings vs time available to have 'em.

Originally Posted by marshall

Kinda cherry picking with the quote but this will definitely create two different classifications for teams. I'm torn on the idea of different classes for teams within FRC... part of me thinks it could be a good thing but part of me also thinks it's going to create unforeseen problems worse than the championshplit.

Having two different classifications for teams is pretty much an automatic nonstarter. Bring the floor up, not the ceiling down. If you are going to have two different classifications, have completely separate competitions.