Concerning Whistleblowing

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I had no idea that rule violations are so rampant at FIRST events. You have completely changed my mind about this.

Im thinking now that each team should appoint students and mentors to be unofficial final inspectors, to discreetly check out every other robot at the event to make sure that no team is getting away with anything (all three days).

And Im thinking FIRST should hire certified professional engineers to be inspectors. The amateur inspectors clearly are not catching all the violations.

I shutter to think what would happen to this program if a team won the championship, and they had illegal parts on their robot, and the media got wind of it! Massive lawsuits!

My point was more that I wanted to know if they passed inspection, because I was going to say something to them about it. Then the head inspector realized why I was asking and took it upon himself to speak to the teams.

I thought that using motors that were not in the kit and twice the number of a motor in the kit was pretty obvious. I had also heard other people commenting on the problems because they were quite obvious to many people with several years experience. At some point it one of us had to ask the question, did they pass inspection that way?

Both teams made the necessary changes and competed.

I don't want to get the into the crazy lawyering scenarios that this can cause. We all get the same rules and KOP. Why do some teams not read them?

BTW One team quite clearly mixed up parts from a previous year with the new kit and the swap out for the correct motor took 5 min.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Dzdconfusd

My point was more that I wanted to know if they passed inspection, because I was going to say something to them about it. Then the head inspector realized why I was asking and took it upon himself to speak to the teams.

\

ok, that is reasonable. Your other post sounded like you were the self-appointed final inspector, and I was getting a little freaked out! :^)

[sanddrag]

Concerning the team I thought had broken the rules by using 2003 or 2004 gearbox components, it would appear that it is indeed legal by R22. My mistake.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

OK, I feel the need to jump in here.
When ever an inspector notices something out of the ordinary whether during final inspection or during match play, it is important to bring it to the lead inspector. In most cases, the lead working with the head refereee will come to a decision on the best way to handle it. Referees on the field have brought things to my attention at every event I have worked. Inspectors cannot find everything, myself included.
As to the "silly" rules, I don't believe there are any. Would I do things differently, perhaps. The rule book puts some constraints on your robot design to give you added "real world problems" to challenge you, your robot and your drivers. Is it possible for a robot team to intentionally break the rules, of course, it is human nature. Team mentors need to keep their teams on track and within the rules, that is their solemn duty in this organization. Throughout life we need to ask ourselves the hard questions, if we don't answer honestly, where will we be? The same holds true here. When faced with "I can do this and no one will know" the answer better be "NO, I can't!". It is not teaching the students on your team or other teams the correct way to live their lives.
Sanddrag, I truly believe that if you had brought it to the Lead Inpsector, they would have been able to help the team become compliant and play in some manner. I have been astounded at how many teams read through the manual but miss so much, this year in particular.
Adhesive use is another manner, the people at the top don't want teams to become lazy and use tape. Using electrical tape for team numbers is acceptable and has been for years, hence the 3/4" stroke, the same size as tape.
Finally, FIRST has gone out of their way to provide a variety of documentation to help teams get through inspection, the current documents are at Rev E for robot inspection. Every team should have their students go through this checklist before bringing the robot for inspection. It is unfortunate but teams may still pass at one event and be called out at another event for the same device. Expect the inspections at Championship to be more thorough than the regionals.

[Swan217]

This is a VERY good ethical question to pose...

Hmm, If it were me, I think I'd talk to the team and mention it to them that they are breaking the rules. If they shrug it off or ignore me, then I wouldn't feel bad blowing the whistle to the head inspector.

[Jack Jones]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

...Referees on the field have brought things to my attention at every event I have worked...

In Milwaukee, for example, I brought it to Al's attention that team XXX had electrical tape wrapped around the radio connection to about half way onto the transmitter. He questioned them as to why they were using the tape for its mechanical properties. They replied they were trying to stop static interference. He pointed out that the tape would do them no good, and suggested instead that they move the transmitter from against a Fisher Price motor.

The moral is: You are doing everyone a favor when you ask the lead inspector to check something out of the ordinary.

[GaryVoshol]

Volunteering at GLR and Detroit, I saw a variety of ways that inspection was handled. Please don't think this is criticism. It is impossible for any inspector to completely memorize all the rules. Some things inevitably get overlooked. Weight and size are easy to measure. It takes a long time for a complete inspection to verify no illegal parts and safety. I think the inspectors do an admirable job - one I have absolutely no ability or desire to try.

Two items were the new things this year - bumpers and flag holders. Partway through the build season Q&A made a ruling that we couldn't swiss-cheese the flag holder tube, and in an update we were told because some teams might take it too far. Also every tube had to have a bottom cap even if it wasn't needed to keep the flag in the tube. Our robot was called for not having a bottom cap - because the tube rested on a horizontal frame cross-member that just happened to be at the correct height. We stuck a cap on it. Later I saw a robot with a tube without any cap (maybe it fell off post-inspection, I don't know) so that the flagpole went completely through the tube until the flag material caught on top.

I saw side bumpers that had the lower corners cut at an angle - no doubt to facilitate getting on the ramp. As far as I know, it was allowed to compete that way. However at Detroit, one robot was pulled aside to have the bumper height measured. The front bumper was mounted too high (outside the 2.5" to 8.5" bumper zone) and they had to correct it.

I can understand the frustration of teams that meet the rules, seeing teams that "get away" with things. Does it matter, does it give an advantage? In the case of mis-shaped bumpers I'd say it does, because the team is operating outside the established parameters in order to accomplish a game task. In the case of a tube without an end cap, it gives no advantage, but if it causes the flag to not be displayed properly, it does matter. In the case of extra motors, there obviously is an operational advantage. In the case of incorrect wiring, there is a safety issue.

We shouldn't be about pointing out things to inspectors "just because" we see they are wrong. The inspectors correctly don't play the "gotcha" game; neither should we. If we see an obvious safety issue, we should point it out to the team in a non-threatening manner; if they don't correct it then we should approach an inspector.

I don't know how to handle the safe but outside rules issues. We're not to be tattle-tales. But teams that made compromises in order to abide by the rules should not be disadvantaged when other teams do not make those same compromises.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

At SoCal I was an inspector. I saw a team using the plastic gearbox parts from the 2003 (and 2004?) kit of parts. These parts were custom made for FIRST back then, were not manufactured by the team during the build season, and were not COTS parts available to everyone by a legitamate vendor. I didn't inspect this particular robot but I saw it while passing by. I didn't call them on it because it would have ruined their whole shooter if they had to remove those pieces. It wasn't giving them any unfair advantage or presenting any unsafe condition.

I beg to differ. FRC is not completely fair, it isn't meant to be, and it never will be, however, all teams are given the exact same rules, exact same KoP, and the exact same challenge in an effort to make things as fair as possible across all teams. For a team to knowingly or inadvertently use ANY part that violates the rules, in this case an illegal gearbox from 2004, definitely IS giving them and unfair advantage over all of the other teams who either followed the rules or are newer teams who didn't have the 2004 gearbox available to use. If a team isn't following the rules it is not only unfair to the other teams but it is doing the team breaking the rules a disservice. If the team is KNOWINGLY breaking the rules then the mentors are truly doing the students a disservice by allowing it to continue and therefor rewarding cheating. If a team doesn't know they are breaking the rules then, well, they should have read ALL of the rules more closely like all of the other teams did that aren't breaking the rules. Either way, it is the duty of everyone (students, mentors, and inspectors) to uphold the rules as best as they can. If a team is observed breaking the rules they should be politely informed and given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to correct the problem. If they refuse they should not be allowed to compete until the situation is resolved. In this case, the team that used the 2004 gearbox should have read the rules like the rest of the teams that followed them. The shooter was illegal and should have been removed if it couldn't be redesigned to not use the illegal gearbox.

[sanddrag]

Had that team been informed of their violation, it could have ruined not only their event but their future. While I was there to uphold the rules, I was not there to ruin anyone's day. Besides, it wasn't like they had a Briggs Lawnmower engine on there. Also, I believe the evidence that is was a non issue is the fact that I am the only one who brought it up. Teams should be proud of themselves for following the rules, not angry at other teams who don't. That is their problem, not ours.

[ChuckDickerson]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Had that team been informed of their violation, it could have ruined not only their event but their future. While I was there to uphold the rules, I was not there to ruin anyone's day. Besides, it wasn't like they had a Briggs Lawnmower engine on there.

Ruin is a rather strong word. FIRST is about more than winning a robotics competition. I would hope that the particular infration in question was not done intentionally. Who can say if this would actually have ruined their competition or not? I am always impressed with the resoursefulness of FIRST teams in the heat of competition. Maybe they could have rechanneled their creativity in a different direction. Maybe other teams could have jumped in and helped them with legal spare parts and come up with a more effective design?

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Also, I believe the evidence that is was a non issue is the fact that I am the only one who brought it up.

Maybe you were the only one to notice, maybe not. If others noticed and didn't say anything either then the whole level of competition just lowered a notch.

Originally Posted by sanddrag

Teams should be proud of themselves for following the rules, not angry at other teams who don't.

Agreed 100%

Originally Posted by sanddrag

That is their problem, not ours.

I do not want to start a flame war here or anything so let's just leave this alone and agree to disagree. I will say this, FIRST is a microcosm of the real World. We all need to work together to solve these problems not pass them off to someone else.

[TimCraig]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank

I didn't want to call them out on it and be thought of as ungracious, especially if the result of my action would mean the difference between losing and winning a match against the team in question.

Would looking the other way while someone breaks the rules be considered "gracious"?

All of us were given the rules and the same time and are expected to follow them. The rules concerning the bumpers were pretty specific. I've heard that cheating in school has become rampant. Is this also carrying over into FIRST? If so, I think enforcement of the rules is in order and to do this the officials need to be informed. I think this is no different than if you fail to inform the police that you've seen a bank robbery.

[Tim Delles]

Originally Posted by Pat Fairbank
So here are my questions:[list

[*]Would you blow the whistle on a team who had gotten through inspection but was still violating the rules, either advertently or inadvertently?[*]Would you only blow the whistle under certain circumstances, such as letting it slide during qualifications, but calling the team out if you came up against them in the eliminations?[*]If not, would you regret not having done so if the team in question went on to defeat you and win the event?[*]Alternately, if you were to confront the team directly about it instead of approaching the inspectors or the referees, how would you go about doing so?[*]Where gracious professionalism is concerned, is it a greater wrong to tattle on another team and potentially bring shame upon both teams, or to let the rule-breaking slide?[/list]

Well the very first thing I do is to go up and discuss this with them. Because if they do not know that it is illegal then they should be informed of it, and I am very sure that any team would fix the problem.

If they know of it I would just remind them and wait and see what happens.

If nothing happens talk to a lead mentor on your team so that they can discuss it with them, and then if it is still a problem bring the rule to one of the inspectors and all them to handle it. But try to avoid bringing the inspectors back into. I just feel this way because almost everyone doesn't want to have to be re-inspected and it is a lot easier just to talk to the team quickly about it.

Just my 2 cents.

Tim

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Tim Delles

Well the very first thing I do is to go up and discuss this with them. Because if they do not know that it is illegal then they should be informed of it, and I am very sure that any team would fix the problem.

If this were any other event or sport I would agree with this statement. My understanding of gracious professionalism forces me to think otherwise for two reasons:

Professionalism. On FIRST teams and in my career as an engineer, I take the position that the people I deal with are professionals. This means they know what they are doing, they are qualified to perform their tasks, and they have earned the right to be in that position. It would be extreemly un-professional for me to second guess another persons skills, ability, knowledge and especially their motives unless I am absolutely certain that they have made a serious error, or they are doing something dangerous to themselves or others. For FIRST teams, this means the students and mentors on all teams are automatically granted the status of professionals in FIRST related things, equal to me, and should be respected accordingly.

Grace. This word deals with how we handle errors and mistakes. The opposite of grace is punishment, rejection, and public humilation. If no one made any mistakes then grace would not be needed. Grace is applied when you know someone else has made a mistake but you DONT hold their feet to the fire.

We have been tasked to interact with each other with both the P and the G. A simple way of combining the two is to give the other person the benefit of doubt. Are you absolutely sure that team did not buy those gears from a COTS source? Are you certain you understand all the aspects of the rule you think another team appears to be violating?

If you are going to confront another team it should only be over matters of a very serious nature. In my career I have confronted managers and project leaders when I thought actions being taken might be illegal, or might expose the company to liabilities that we could not handle. Confrontation is a valuable tool, but it should only be used when absolutely needed.

Without GP FIRST could easily degrade into a contest involving the exchange of various body fluids. I would rather err on the side of Grace then to see FIRST come to the point where we have FIRST-Dads beating each other up in the stands because one driver rammed another robot just a little to hard, or teams showing up for regionals with lawyers.

As an engineer there are times when I review and critique other peoples work : design reviews, job interviews, performance reviews. Even at these events we never judge the person, we judge the work only. If you are a FIRST inspector, a judge, or a ref then you should hold each team to the standards that FIRST has established.

If you are not an inspector, a judge, or a ref then you are NOT an inspector, a judge or a ref, unless another team asks for your opinion or assistance.