Ruling on Robonauts Balance

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

The GDC's fallacy is in the application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard.

I don't understand what you mean. How is that a fallacy?

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In that respect, the knee-jerk application of the "reasonably astute observer" standard to so many different situations leaves a lot of big ambiguities.

How many different situations this year had the "reasonably astute observer" applied to them? Considering grab/grasp/grapple to be one, what were the others?

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

FIRST often uses common words, but attaches special meaning to them. I think the Q&A questions about definitions were perfectly reasonable attempts to discover whether this was the case here.

I agree -- and I think the application of the "reasonably astute observer" litmus test clearly articulated that these common words did not have special meaning attached to them.

Originally Posted by SenorZ

As a mentor I tell my kids to err on the side of caution; if you think you might be breaking a rule, stop.

What the Robonauts did was make sure that a ruling against them wouldn't cripple their robot or their game plan if it didn't pan out -- which is exactly the type of risk-taking I would encourage my team to consider.

[jspatz1]

I must say I am rather bewildered by this whole discussion. The rules state that you cannot grapple on the field elements. 118's edge hang is about the purest example of a grapple that I can imagine. It couldn't be more clear that the intent of the rule is to prevent this kind of technique. I don't blame the GDC for not engaging in a debate about which dictionary to draw the definition of grapple from. They made it clear that you cannot grapple on the field elements. Period. Even if you can think of a word maze to rationalize that a grapple isn't really a grapple. Yes, you could do it in 2010. No, you can't do it in 2012.

[Marc S.]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

I must say I am rather bewildered by this whole discussion. The rules state that you cannot grapple on the field elements. 118's edge hang is about the purest example of a grapple that I can imagine. It couldn't be more clear that the intent of the rule is to prevent this kind of technique. I don't blame the GDC for not engaging in a debate about which dictionary to draw the definition of grapple from. They made it clear that you cannot grapple on the field elements. Period. Even if you can think of a word maze to rationalize that a grapple isn't really a grapple. Yes, you could do it in 2010. No, you can't do it in 2012.

The issue was which definition of grapple applied. Only 1 of 3 definitions that i could find classified 118's hang as grappling.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by lemiant

In this one I see your defense of the GDC unfounded. An engineering firm might be ok with situation above, but this more like if your customer had ambiguous specs and when you repeatedly went back to them and asked for clarification the customer refused to tell you what they actually wanted. Then when you came to them with the finished product they admonished you for not giving them what they wanted and rejected your design. Additionally FIRST is not the real world and should not be treated as such, one big difference is that here it's not FIRST paying us five grand .

Actually, this is exactly how an open bidding process works in the "real world". The GDC did not respond to requests to "validate a design". That is often how it works (always in my experience). A proposal team does not want to ask a question that is too revealing (because all bidders typically see all responses) and the customer will not answer private queries (to avoid an appearance of favoritism). So one is left with a risk management decision (which 118 did well in my judgment).

FIRST is meant to encourage young people to pursue careers in science and technology. If FRC was simply a game and not meant to mimic the "real world" - Why have Chairman Awards? Why the formal focus on quality and safety? Why have project managers? Why have engineering inspiration awards? Why do it in 6 weeks? Why the effort to use industry standard parts? In my opinion FIRST is definitely mimics the real world (with some limits).

Further, in the real world, one also pays to play and assumes a huge risk (no contract award) - at least in FIRST everyone gets their 10-12 matches worth. The $5K is a pittance against what it cost to put the events on. Consider the event volunteers, mentors and teachers and FIRST national staff volunteers. The $5K is just affirmation of serious intentions in my opinion. Teams are not "customers" who should make demands of FIRST.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I don't understand what you mean. How is that a fallacy?

I don't mean that in the sense of a strict logical fallacy. I'm talking about their mistaken belief that relying on the perceptions of a "reasonably astute observer" would remove sufficient doubt to allow teams to discern what was meant in a variety of complex cases.

Originally Posted by pfreivald

How many different situations this year had the "reasonably astute observer" applied to them? Considering grab/grasp/grapple to be one, what were the others?

This version of the Q&A doesn't let you search the answers (huge flaw). Nevertheless, here's at least a few times FIRST has invoked that phrase:

Game - The Robot » Bumper Rules » R33
Q. How much tolerance is for attaching at the "end" of the bumper? Do we need to attach within 4" of the physical end? 1"? At the infinitesimal point at the end of the bumper? Physical constraints may make it difficult to place two perpendicular fasteners at the same infinitesimal point in space. FRC0057 2012-02-15
A. If it appears that a Bumper is rigidly attached at the end to a reasonably astute observer, it will be considered attached "at the end".

Game - The Robot » Bumper Rules » R33
Q. Where is the end of a Bumper? We have bumpers that are two 8" pieces of plywood rigidly attached perpendicular to each other at the corner, plus noodle cloth, etc. Do we have to attach to the frame perimeter at just the two end points of this L shaped bumper, or at the corner as well? FRC0057 2012-02-15
A. If it appears that a Bumper is rigidly attached at the end to a reasonably astute observer, it will be considered attached "at the end".

Game - The Game » General Rules
Q. Please define Grapple. FRC0973 2012-02-13
A. There is no formal definition. If a reasonably astute observer would consider what a Robot to be doing as grappling, it's grappling.

Game - The Game » General Rules
Q. Please define Grasp. FRC0973 2012-02-13
A. There is no formal definition. If a reasonably astute observer would consider what a Robot to be doing as grasping, it's grasping.

Game - The Game » General Rules
Q. Please define Grab. FRC0973 2012-02-13
A. There is no formal definition. If a reasonably astute observer would consider what a Robot to be doing as grabbing, it's grabbing.

[R08C]
Any devices or decorations specifically intended to jam or interfere with the remote sensing capabilities of another Robot, including vision systems, acoustic range finders, sonars, infra-red proximity detectors, etc.(e.g. including imagery on your Robot that, to a reasonably astute observer, mimics the Vision Target)

[R28D]
be covered with a rugged, smooth cloth. The cloth must completely enclose all exposed surfaces of the plywood and pool noodle material. The fabric covering the Bumpers must be a solid red or blue in color. Visually, the red or blue must be as close to the corresponding color in the FIRST logo as reasonable (i.e. to a reasonably astute observer, they appear similar). The only markings permitted on the Bumper fabric cover are the team number (see Rule [R35]).

That's 3 or 4, plus grasp, grapple & grab; there are probably other places as well.

Apart from the obvious question of which reasonably astute observer, these are hardly similar situations. There are various degrees of urgency, consequence and ambiguity. Are we supposed to infer that because FIRST uses the same test in all cases, there's a likeness between them? Or are these completely independent situations, which only happen to share a dependence on the observer?

In law, when a judge defines a legal test (like this famous one), usually there are several paragraphs of explanation, and citations for context. FIRST is emulating the pithiness of that practice, without any of the supporting documentation. (Indeed, I don't expect supporting documentation, because precedent has no defined role, and because FIRST only infrequently explains its intent thoroughly.)

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I agree -- and I think the application of the "reasonably astute observer" litmus test clearly articulated that these common words did not have special meaning attached to them.

Fair enough, but I think they also inserted a term with special meaning ("reasonably astute observer") into the situation. In essence, the problem is not to 'grasp' but to 'grasp in the opinion of a reasonably astute observer'. It might have been better to have said 'at the discretion of the referees'. That way, we know that there is uncertainty—but we know where the uncertainty lies. There would be no question of a team arguing that some reasonably astute observers justifiably believe this legal, and feeling wronged because the officials did not recognize the well-founded opinions of those other observers.

Interpretation of "reasonably astute observer" comes down to this: is it supposed to a question of what the referee thinks, or a question of what the referee thinks the community of reasonably astute observers thinks? (Same for inspectors, where the call is instead theirs to make; note that inspectors have the leisure of time to discuss the call with everyone.)

[zachmartin1806]

The rule states that you may not grapple and if you do you will be given a foul. That is only a 3 point loss, however, there is no rule stating that in the event of a "grapple" the balance will not be counted. This being said why not use the mechanism and take the foul but get the three robot balance giving your alliance 37 points? Am i wrong in this thinking or am i correct that there is no rule that preventing a balanced bridge in the event of a grapple?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by wireties

Actually, this is exactly how an open bidding process works in the "real world". The GDC did not respond to requests to "validate a design". That is often how it works (always in my experience). A proposal team does not want to ask a question that is too revealing (because all bidders typically see all responses) and the customer will not answer private queries (to avoid an appearance of favoritism). So one is left with a risk management decision (which 118 did well in my judgment).

FIRST is meant to encourage young people to pursue careers in science and technology. If FRC was simply a game and not meant to mimic the "real world" - Why have Chairman Awards? Why the formal focus on quality and safety? Why have project managers? Why have engineering inspiration awards? Why do it in 6 weeks? Why the effort to use industry standard parts? In my opinion FIRST is definitely mimics the real world (with some limits).

You're assuming that this similarity is intentional for a very specific reason, rather than coincidental, or intentional for other reasons. And you're also implying that the operation of a competitive bid process is a good thing.

There's more nuance to it than that—a bid process is good when you have strong bidders who represent their own interests effectively, and who don't particularly care about the economic inefficiency caused by incomplete information. I don't think this describes most FIRST teams very well.

Originally Posted by wireties

Further, in the real world, one also pays to play and assumes a huge risk (no contract award) - at least in FIRST everyone gets their 10-12 matches worth. The $5K is a pittance against what it cost to put the events on. Consider the event volunteers, mentors and teachers and FIRST national staff volunteers. The $5K is just a affirmation of serious intentions in my opinion. Teams are not "customers" who should make demands of FIRST.

You're conflating overhead related to preparing a bid with a registration fee paid to the event organizer. I don't think that's a good comparison.

In any case, even in a competitive bid, bidders are entitled to equitable treatment by the tenderer. In that sense, they have the right to make demands (e.g. protests) if they feel mistreated. I would say at a minimum, FIRST teams are also entitled to equitable treatment, and to make such demands as are necessary to acquire that.

[johnr]

How exactly were the students going to descibe this function to the pit judges? We hang off the ...nope, can't say that. We grab on to the...nope,can't say that. How would you descibe it to a judge? How would you describe it to anyone? Isn't there another team hanging off the edge of the ramp?

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by johnr

How exactly were the students going to descibe this function to the pit judges? We hang off the ...nope, can't say that. We grab on to the...nope,can't say that. How would you descibe it to a judge? How would you describe it to anyone? Isn't there another team hanging off the edge of the ramp?

Yes, 179 hangs of the edge of the ramp, yes its not the same edge but you didn't specify which edge they had to hang from...

[BigJ]

Originally Posted by johnr

How exactly were the students going to descibe this function to the pit judges? We hang off the ...nope, can't say that. We grab on to the...nope,can't say that. How would you descibe it to a judge? How would you describe it to anyone? Isn't there another team hanging off the edge of the ramp?

Presumably the technical judges asking questions about it would understand an explanation similar to the one given in the 118 reveal thread.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

You're assuming that this similarity is intentional for a very specific reason, rather than coincidental, or intentional for other reasons. And you're also implying that the operation of a competitive bid process is a good thing.

Does it matter if the similarity is intentional or not (and I think it is)? It just exists.

Does it matter whether the process is good or not? It is widely used and an appropriate analogy. I know this from vast experience with such things. Are you implying that a competitive bid process is always a bad thing? May I ask what life experiences lead you to make such a statement?

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In any case, even in a competitive bid, bidders are entitled to equitable treatment by the tenderer. In that sense, they have the right to make demands (e.g. protests) if they feel mistreated. I would say at a minimum, FIRST teams are also entitled to equitable treatment, and to make such demands as are necessary to acquire that.

Entitled? hehe, spoken like someone who has never suffered through such a process! Here is what really happens. A company suffers through the interminable delay (due to the protests) and gives up. Or the bid is broken up, changed or withdrawn. Or the request is ignored and you do not sue because you can't afford it. In all cases one acquires a reputation for complaining, warranted or not. It is not fair - again, it just is.

The idyllic world to which you refer does not exist. I wish that it did.

[RRLedford]

Since we also balance on the edge of the bridge rail with 20" of our 33" width protruding off the bridge, but in a way that does not grasp grapple or grip the edge rail, I will offer my assessment of why 118' scheme was disallowed.

The device that they engage the bridge with clearly relies on the cantilevered weight of the bot to effectively hook, pinch, grip, squeeze, grasp, and clamp on to the edge rail of the bridge.

Functionally. their device initiates rail contact via multiple opposing points of contact on the mechanism, and the subsequent torque developed, as the cantilevered weight of the bot transfers onto the mechanism causes the mechanism to rotate around the length axis of the rail, so as to twist the device downward and away from the bridge, and this mechanism rotation results in a net pinching effect on the thickness of the rail's aluminum.
The problem with the 118 design results from the way that the multiple opposing points of contact react against the rail to produce a net compression of the opposite sides of the rail. This seems to be exactly what the GDC and their rule wording would not allow.

If I place a C-clamp over the bridge rail, but then I stop tightening it right before it contacts the rail, at which point, I then apply all my weight to the C-clamp, the resulting torque on the C-clamp will make it grip the rail. Just because the C-clamp was not initially squeezing the rail before the weight was applied does nor mean that the C-clamp is not gripping the rail after the weight is applied.

Now if the 118 bot relied on another bot to move the bridge upward in order to lift them off the ground, then I would consider this a possible allowed exception, since the 118 bot is not manipulating any device against the bridge, and the grasping result is just incidental to the motion of the bridge, which they did not cause. Still a stretch though, since grasping engagement was the desired result of how the bot was positioned relative to the bridge.

-Dick Ledford

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by wireties

Does it matter if the similarity is intentional or not (and I think it is)? It just exists.

Of course it matters—you can't do justice to the intent of the rules if you don't know whether it was actually intentional!

Originally Posted by wireties

Does it matter whether the process is good or not? It is widely used and an appropriate analogy. I know this from vast experience with such things. Are you implying that a competitive bid process is always a bad thing? May I ask what life experiences lead you to make such a statement?

I'm saying that a competitive bid process is sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing—and that for the reasons explained above, bidding is probably not a great analogy for the situation encountered in FRC.

And yes, process is important. Even if you get the right principal result from a process, its side effects and externalities can still make it a bad process.

Originally Posted by wireties

Entitled? hehe, spoken like someone who has never suffered through such a process! Here is what really happens. A company suffers through the interminable delay (due to the protests) and gives up. Or the bid is broken up, changed or withdrawn. Or the request is ignored and you do not sue because you can't afford it. In all cases one acquires a reputation for complaining, warranted or not. It is not fair - again, it just is.

"Entitled" merely means a moral, legal or other right to something. I don't think it's controversial to believe that by registering for FRC, a team is entitled to be treated equitably. At the very least, there are contractual rights created by registering. And while legally, FIRST might be able to put on a poor-quality dog and pony show, and satisfy the contract, there's a strong moral imperative that it go substantially beyond that. Every sporting tradition suggests that the officials should be fair in their application of the rules. They may not always get it correct, but it's hardly contentious that a competitor is entitled to feel wronged by an incompetent, corrupt or even innocently mistaken official.

As for the bidding process, the law recognizes that entitlement exists there too. Things you could do—but don't for practical reasons—don't diminish the remedy to which you're entitled.¹ They just make it less likely you'll ever collect it. That can actually be a good thing, if as you note, it means that you avoid a reputation for complaining, and therefore get more business. On the other hand, it can mean that you acquire a reputation as a pushover, and get all the business you can manage, at a grossly inadequate rate.

Originally Posted by wireties

The idyllic world to which you refer does not exist. I wish that it did.

Equity is inherently an ideal. In the real world, there's nothing wrong with approximating it to the degree possible. That's the essence of doing business in good faith.

¹ I'm going to leave estoppel, laches and other equitable doctrines out of it; basically, in the English common law system that we're familiar with, if you're operating in good faith and satisfying your own obligations, this is true.

[pfreivald]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I'm talking about their mistaken belief that relying on the perceptions of a "reasonably astute observer" would remove sufficient doubt to allow teams to discern what was meant in a variety of complex cases.

It was awfully cut-and-dry to me, and to most people I've spoken to.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

That's 3 or 4, plus grasp, grapple & grab; there are probably other places as well.

No, grasp, grapple, and grab were included in your quotes, and the bumper ones were essentially the same question. Thus, four cases as far as you were able to drum up. Blue is blue (and this was intended as 'close enough, don't worry about dye lot numbers'), bumpers have to be supported on the ends, vision interference is vision interference, and grasp/grab/grapple mean what they mean. I hardly think that's "so many different situations" that leave "a lot of big ambiguities".

Hyperbole doesn't help your argument.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Are we supposed to infer that because FIRST uses the same test in all cases, there's a likeness between them?

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes -- they're alike in that they're all extremely obvious if you're not trying to game the system.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In law,

I'll stop you there. We are specifically instructed not to lawyer the rules. Talking about how judges define legal tests is directly contrary to what you're supposed to be doing when you look at these game rules. (And besides, if you're going to drag judicial practice into this, Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" is a much better analogy to the "reasonably astute observer" test.)

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

In essence, the problem is not to 'grasp' but to 'grasp in the opinion of a reasonably astute observer'. It might have been better to have said 'at the discretion of the referees'. That way, we know that there is uncertainty—but we know where the uncertainty lies. There would be no question of a team arguing that some reasonably astute observers justifiably believe this legal, and feeling wronged because the officials did not recognize the well-founded opinions of those other observers.

I'm a bit astounded at this line of reasoning. Are you seriously positing the argument that anyone reading the phrase "a reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation would interpret it as any observer that considers themselves reasonably astute?

I mean, I suppose you could read it that way, but I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would do so, as doing so would render the rule so subjective as to be meaningless (and thus it cannot possibly be the intent of the GDC).

This, by the way, falls right into the positivist trap. I can just imagine the question to the Q&A: "When you say 'a reasonably astute observer', what do you mean by 'a'? Does it mean any reasonably astute observer, a particular reasonably astute observer, or an observer that is considered by the team or the person themselves to be reasonably astute? Also, in assessing observers, what is the difference between reasonably astute and unreasonably astute (or reasonably unastute?)"

Reading requires interpretation; finding the correct interpretation means asking yourself, "what does the author most likely mean in this case?" I have a hard time believing that anyone would read "reasonably astute observer" as used in FRC documentation and come to any conclusion other than a generic layman observing the relevant phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Interpretation of "reasonably astute observer" comes down to this: is it supposed to a question of what the referee thinks, or a question of what the referee thinks the community of reasonably astute observers thinks? (Same for inspectors, where the call is instead theirs to make; note that inspectors have the leisure of time to discuss the call with everyone.)

I think that any reasonably astute FRC team member can safely assume that FIRST chooses people that they consider to be reasonably astute to serve as judges, referees, and inspectors. I am flabbergasted that anyone would spend an iota of brainpower trying to figure out precisely what aggregate gestalt makes up the relevant "reasonably astute observer" pool, and somewhat amused by the notion that some people think it would matter vis-a-vis the rules to a game.

[wireties]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

I'm saying that a competitive bid process is sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing—and that for the reasons explained above, bidding is probably not a great analogy for the situation encountered in FRC.

sometimes a bad thing—or at least not uniformly a good thing - really?

One could make that statement about all matters involving one or more humans - it means nothing.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

On the other hand, it can mean that you acquire a reputation as a pushover, and get all the business you can manage, at a grossly inadequate rate.

That is not the net result. Performing for a grossly inadequate rate puts one out of business and/or likely not to make the same mistake again.

And in FIRST, the troll-bot teams will likely modify their risk assessment methodologies next year.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Equity is inherently an ideal. In the real world, there's nothing wrong with approximating it to the degree possible. That's the essence of doing business in good faith.

Like I said - I wish that it did.