Cheating in FRC

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by gblake

My advice is focused 100% on the student.

FIRST, once made aware of any allegations, by an anonymous report, by a reporter who asks to have their name kept secret, or by a reporter who wishes to be named; can discreetly investigate, and can use their influence to attempt to improve anything that needs to be improved.

If the people in FIRST (who I know care about students beyond just STEM inspiration) perceive a need to ask local administrators (or any other members of the local community) to keep an eye on things, I trust that they will discreetly do it.

On the other hand, we here can form rabbles, can reach ill-informed conclusions, can go off half-cocked, etc.

This sort of thing needs to be handled by people able to get to the truth of the matter, and able to be (physically) present for the long haul.

If that original report it's true, contact FIRST, and perhaps someone in the local administration/community. From them you can get improvements. From the Internet, you often get something else.

And I'll reiterate.. If the student is comfortable going to FIRST (which the original post indicates), then why shouldn't we offer them an alternative that can help them? Why should we sit here and insist that they do something they aren't comfortable with, something that could lead to adverse consequences in their school or peer group?. Putting it out on a forum like this is a great way to get tons of non-specific and probably not very helpful advise. Going to a single trusted individual and having an in depth conversation, on the other hand, can provide the support and confirmation one needs to take things to the next level.

[MrJohnston]

With the number of folks involved in FRC, there is almost certain to be cheating... If we value honesty in this event, it's imperative that we confront the offending individuals/teams, etc. If this does not quietly solve the issue, word should be passed up the line - either to your district/regional chairman or to Frank Merrick.

Reports are often going to be a he-said-she-said situation, making any sort of "investigation" difficult. However, if an incident is reported by several different sources, it can be dealt with properly.

Making such reports is especially important if the offending team has a fair amount of competitive success. The last thing we want is for the "only" way for teams to win is by cheating.

And, also, we probably don't want to go into a lot of detail on CD... Having accusations float around the community without being substantiated will do far more harm than good.

[GreyingJay]

Agreed with all of the above. But ultimately it is up to our own team leadership to self police.

If my team does well but fails to make it to champs, then so be it. We will know that we tried our best and we will strive to be that much better next year. If the reason we didn't make it is because the team that beat us cheated to get there - well, that's frustrating and heartbreaking, but does not take anything away from our successes. Now, if we KNOW that team cheated, then of course we will report it. That's only fair. But otherwise we have to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

[bEdhEd]

I saw this yesterday on reddit and didn't reply because plenty of people had already given gracious and helpful comments regarding the reporting, so I was hopeful that OP had the courage to report. It's unfortunate that no details were given as to which team this is, but considering that OP was intimidated enough to not report, I feel like this issue may be deeper than we have been told.

If you're reading this OP, PLEASE report the members of your team who are not being GP about how they lead your program. Yes, it's YOUR program, not your mentor's. If you fear harassment from your team for reporting, I recommend seeking a nearby team for guidance, and possibly join them for the season. They may be helpful for reporting and give you the courage to do so.

If there are no reasonably close teams, then maybe reporting and taking a break from their program may benefit you for your sake mentally after reporting. If the problem is somehow resolved, come back to the program.

The other side of this of course, is that this is all anecdotal and only from the perspective of the student, and could be exaggerated. Regardless, it should still be reported. The situation may not be bad enough to remove a mentor, since this is not exactly the best solution to a problem we are not clear about, but if the offending mentors are notified officially from FIRST, there may be a positive change in behavior.

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

How, in precise terms, did this this team cheat? Did they un-bag their robot and work on it? Did they build a practice robot to work on? Did they build parts that could be considered part of the withholding allowance? It's really difficult to assess the situation without these pieces of information.

On top of this, even if the team in question was blatantly breaking a rule, public shaming is hardly the best way to remedy the situation.

Although I am also curious as to how exactly they're breaking the 6 week timeline, I'm not as worried about the robot being worked on after stop build as I am worried about how the Chairman's Award process is allegedly lacking in integrity and student involvement. That completely defeats the purpose and spirit of the Chairman's Award and if this is indeed how their award is being put together, that is many times over a greater offense than adding robot parts after stop build on the competition bot. After all, it's not all about the robot.

[Michael Corsetto]

Seek the truth, not what you wish to see.

OP, talk to a person at FIRST, go from there.

Everyone else, don't jump to conclusions.

Mentors are awesome because they volunteer their time to work with high school kids.

Let's try to be rational, not reactionary.

-Mike

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by bEdhEd

Although I am also curious as to how exactly they're breaking the 6 week timeline, I'm not as worried about the robot being worked on after stop build as I am worried about how the Chairman's Award process is allegedly lacking in integrity and student involvement. That completely defeats the purpose and spirit of the Chairman's Award and if this is indeed how their award is being put together, that is many times over a greater offense than adding robot parts after stop build on the competition bot.

To put it bluntly - lying to judges is more common than you'd expect.

On Chairmans:
Exaggerating in Chairman's is almost expected (we'll see how the new guidelines impact this) And I know that many teams rely on adults to work on Chairman's in the same way that they rely on adults in the design and fabrication process. I don't see this as a problem at all. We are there as mentors not as baby sitters, and we should be leveraging our knowledge and experience to make sure the team produces the best results it can. Now, I don't think a team where the adults do all the Chairman's prep work, students present it, and they win at the HoF level is a good result, I also don't think it's possible.

But I digress - To me, this is an anonymous poster venting about their perceptions. Reality may be VERY different. If anyone actually involved in the situation would like advice on resolving it: Sit down with the disgruntled party, discuss issues, figure out a plan moving forward. If the disgruntled party wants advice - contact your local Senior Mentor/RD and talk it out with them, they can probably help get you in contact with the right folks.

On Cheating:

Short term, they may win. Long term?

Winning is important. This is a competition. However, winning the right way and being proud of what you have accomplished and how you have accomplished it is more important - See more at: http://www.firstinspires.org/robotic....YYaa3nTz.dpuf

[MrJohnston]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

To put it bluntly - lying to judges is more common than you'd expect.

On Chairmans:
Exaggerating in Chairman's is almost expected (we'll see how the new guidelines impact this)

This bothers me. My team does not lie to judges at all... We also work hard to be accurate in our assessments of our work and deeds for our Chairman's presentations.... You make it sound like we are at a serious competitive disadvantage for being honest.... I thought FIRST was supposed to be better than this?

I recognize that, with 3000 teams and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of participants and mentors, some folks will be a bit misguided. But to think that it's the "norm" does not sit well with me.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

This bothers me. My team does not lie to judges at all... We also work hard to be accurate in our assessments of our work and deeds for our Chairman's presentations.... You make it sound like we are at a serious competitive disadvantage for being honest.... I thought FIRST was supposed to be better than this?

I recognize that, with 3000 teams and tens (hundreds?) of thousands of participants and mentors, some folks will be a bit misguided. But to think that it's the "norm" does not sit well with me.

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

[The_ShamWOW88]

Originally Posted by Michael Corsetto

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

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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