Poll - Legalities

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

You're not serious are you?
So let's say the ramming in the loading zone for the 2005 game Triple play does not have to be justified because it's just a written rule that can be arbitrarily followed by the participants at their own discretion if they deem it stupid or unfair? Never mind that it's truest intention was to make it safe for the human player to go out and load the robot without the risk of being injured by flying robot parts due to contact.
Rules are rules. You can debate them. You can apply to have them changed but you certainly should not just ignore them because you don't agree with them. That's just irresponsible and is totally against the principles of FIRST.

I think that he's thinking on a bigger scale than FIRST. A blanket statement that all rules must be followed ignores, for example, the obvious moral dilemma encountered by the many who despised slavery, and wanted to facilitate the escape of slaves. Should they have merely lobbied to change the rules, to the exclusion of all illegal activity (e.g. participation in the Underground Railroad)? Would that have been the morally upstanding thing to do? And how were they supposed to weigh the morality of their options, when the effects of legal, peaceful lobbying on an unsympathetic government were anything but assured—what if years of protest came to nothing, and as a result of taking the strictly legal path, thousands lived those years in slavery because nobody came to their aid?

Consider that morals are not absolute and universal, except in the twisted imaginings of religious fanatics and totalitarians. While our society (as in, Western civilization) is founded upon some important principles, they are expressed with varying fervour and effect wherever you go.

Now, if we step back into the world of FIRST, rather than the world in general, I think that the practice of following rules becomes a little clearer. In life in general, we have the nebulous idea of a social contract to force us to abide by the rules. Our options for "taking our ball, and going home" are very limited in real life—we can't easily declare part of western New York to be a No-Rules Zone, and therefore exempt ourselves from society's judgment. But in FIRST, we're participating because we want to. I can't say that it's unreasonable to presume that we have given (at the very least) implied consent to be bound by the rules set forth by FIRST, and enforced by its officials. If we don't like them, and can't abide by following them, we can take our ball and go home. But doing that doesn't make for good sport. And furthermore, in FIRST, there is a reasonably reliable way to effect change, if the reasons behind it are good enough.

As for the poll? Well, unsurprisingly, I think that it's an inadequate way to summarize one of the big questions of philosophy. Especially when indiviuals' motivations for their answers (and similarly, their actions) are not simple in the slightest. One look at Kohlberg, and you'll see what I mean.

[Madison]

Without considering the morality of creating and breaking rules, I wanted to point out that there are considerable figures of history that are known and admired precisely because they broke the rules. Surely, we'd not condemn as immoral folks like Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gandhi, Samuel Adams or Martin Luther King, Jr., would we?

[Bemis]

Of course the world is flat. It is because we say it is, and that makes it true.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Bemis

Of course the world is flat. It is because we say it is, and that makes it true.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in CHina?

[Joe Matt]

To suggest breaking rules can be broken down to a poll is very narrow minded. My main problem is not if rules are ment to be broken or even if they should, but this poll. The poll is lopsided and biased. Lets discuss and not break down people and single them out.

I break some rules and I love it, not for the thrill, but for the fact it progresses what others and I know.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

To suggest breaking rules can be broken down to a poll is very narrow minded. My main problem is not if rules are ment to be broken or even if they should, but this poll. The poll is lopsided and biased. Lets discuss and not break down people and single them out.

I break some rules and I love it, not for the thrill, but for the fact it progresses what others and I know.

We all know that we can build better robots with more motors, better pneumatics and more weight. Does this mean that it is OK to break the rules to progress these areas?

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Without considering the morality of creating and breaking rules, I wanted to point out that there are considerable figures of history that are known and admired precisely because they broke the rules. Surely, we'd not condemn as immoral folks like Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gandhi, Samuel Adams or Martin Luther King, Jr., would we?

That is ture.
Without King I would never even to be able to participate in FIRST.

[Dan Zollman]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Without considering the morality of creating and breaking rules, I wanted to point out that there are considerable figures of history that are known and admired precisely because they broke the rules. Surely, we'd not condemn as immoral folks like Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gahndi, Samuel Adams or Martin Luther King, Jr., would we?

Those people are known for using civil disobedience. I believe that Gandhi (I remember reading something about this, but I don't know what; could have been Martin Luther King Jr.) wrote that civil disobedience is only acceptable when used against unjust laws. An "unjust law" would be defined as something that takes away someone's right(s), while the people at loss don't have the voice to change the law or speak against it. Gandhi and Martin Luther King didn't fight against laws simply because they disliked them.

So I would reconsider what I originally said about that people should never challenge a law.

[Jeremiah Johnson]

Originally Posted by worldbringer

Those people are known for using civil disobedience. I believe that Gandhi (I remember reading something about this, but I don't know what; could have been Martin Luther King Jr.) wrote that civil disobedience is only acceptable when used against unjust laws.

I'm pretty sure it was Ghandi. And it applies to oppression. It comes close to the argument at hand, and could possibly be the argument at hand. In that case, it has been discussed.

[JaneYoung]

I am of the belief that as a FIRSTer, rules are set in place for a reason. They have been carefully processed and thought about before being implemented.
There is also a system in place to question the rules, asking for further explanation or consideration. Regarding FIRST, I believe in following the rules and in mentoring students in FIRST to not only follow the rules but to respect the rules and the people of FIRST who have carefully thought about, developed, and implemented them.

Regarding rules and laws in general, I follow them. Society grows and develops with each generation, changing laws and rules as we go. I pay attention, I participate, I vote.

Jane

[=Martin=Taylor=]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

Never mind that it's truest intention was to make it safe for the human player to go out and load the robot without the risk of being injured by flying robot parts due to contact.

Exactly. The rule was created to protect people. Not do them harm, or give certain people unfair advantages. It is therefore a perfectly reasonable law and should be followed.

If you want another example, take file sharing. File sharing used to be legal. But was it moral? You were essentially stealing things, which you should never do.


It all depends on how obvious the rules are. Some of the "dumb rules" I gave examples of are probably completely reasonable. They were enacted to solve a problem. Such as local kids tormenting endangered lizards in a nearby park. But to us they sound crazy.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Hachiban VIII

Exactly. The rule was created to protect people. Not do them harm, or give certain people unfair advantages. It is therefore a perfectly reasonable law and should be followed.

If you want another example, take file sharing. File sharing used to be legal. But was it moral? You were essentially stealing things, which you should never do.


It all depends on how obvious the rules are. Some of the "dumb rules" I gave examples of are probably completely reasonable. They were enacted to solve a problem. Such as local kids tormenting endangered lizards in a nearby park. But to us they sound crazy.

File sharing also came with inherited risks of virus while "reputable" vendors would not do so because destroying a customer's computer would cut down return business by significant amount. There is a give and take on anything you do.

[Kims Robot]

I dont really think I can honestly answer this poll either. While I do try my best in most cases to follow rules & laws, I cant say I always do. Usually it isnt out of blatant disregard for rules, but out of common sense & moral judgement like most have mentioned in this post. We broke a venue rule this year because we didnt want to have to pay $15 per kid for enough water to keep the drive team from dehydrating and passing out. We broke the venue rule of bringing food in because our pit crew had to work until 8pm and they closed the food stand at 4pm. We knew the rules and broke them. I knew the rules and allowed my team to break them, so I dont feel that I can pass judgement that all other FIRSTers should NOT break rules. Personally, I dont think it has to do with getting caught. For me, its safety. I know that my drive team cant afford to pay for the $3/bottle venue water for the whole day, I know that my pit crew is too dedicated to leave the venue to go eat when we really need to get something done. They are self sacrificing and I refuse to let them obtain physical harm because of it, nor am I going to let the whole team down to force "mothering" onto them.

Funny thing is, I would never let my team break a FIRST competition rule. I am able to see the point behind all of the rules, and none of the FIRST rules will cause physical harm to my team. I dont let them work outside the windows, I wont encourage them to ram another team if a judge isnt looking, I wont let them add weight after they have passed inspection (without reweighing). But FIRST is a game, it isnt real life, a rule in the FIRST game isnt going to make one of my team members pass out.

As for rules/laws in general I end up with the same aspect as venue rules. Do I go 5 miles over the speed limit? Yeah, I feel safe driving at that speed. Do I go 50 miles over? No... its definitely NOT safe to do that. Do I use a handsfree device? 95% of the time yes, have I not been able to find it and picked up my phone? Yes if Im in a place where it wont cause me to get in an accident. Did I do things in HS & College that werent legal? Yes, but I did it with safety in mind. Does that make it right? No. But can I preach that others should still uphold in that case? I dont feel I should. I dont like the "do as I say not as I do" statement. Would I tell a kid never to get in a car with someone who has been drinking? Heck yes... that isnt a law, but its common sense & safety. Do I have a Stop DWI magnet on my car? Yes, because I feel it is unsafe. Again, I dont say that its right for me to break any laws or rules, but Im going to live my life by judgement and common sense.

Originally Posted by Jane

There is also a system in place to question the rules, asking for further explanation or consideration. Regarding FIRST, I believe in following the rules and in mentoring students in FIRST to not only follow the rules but to respect the rules and the people of FIRST who have carefully thought about, developed, and implemented them.

I realize the team forums are a place we can question rules, but it seems that there are some rules that they wont answer about. For example, how is it safer to have a team lug 100lb toolboxes down steep stairs into a venue instead of letting them go into the loading dock? How can a venue ban food, but then close their foodcourts 4 hours before the close of the venue? How can a venue not allow teams to bring in water bottles so they can charge $3 per pop? We actually did ask FIRST officials to give us permission to bring food in when our pit crew was starving, but it took them over 40 minutes to give us approval (I had already sent parents out to get food by then). I think honestly the answers are that FIRST has gotten too big and too corporate to have control over these things. Insurance and venue restrictions kick in. When they could hold it in a HS gym, no one cared where teams loaded in as long as they were safe about it, no one cared if they brought in water bottles or food, as long as they picked up after themselves.

I guess in close, I wish I could say that FIRSTers should always uphold rules, but I feel more that they should always act morally. If we raise them right, they will have a conscience, and if they go by that, they will do what is right. I want my kids to think for themselves, and if that causes them to break a rule every once in a while, then I know they are human, and I will forgive them for it.

[Alekat]

If anyone's beliefs truly violate "the rules" then they will break those rules without question. For example, a person who goes back in time to kill Hitler would likely be sent to prison, maybe for life, but his or her beliefs were obviously strong enough for them to handle the consequences. As far as getting away with breaking the rules goes, nobody escapes justice. Perhaps if you're "feeling picked on" this can be related to a violation of one's moral grounds.

[Cyberguy34000]

Rules/laws are contracts between those in authority and those under control. They are created to make life more predictable. Nothing more, nothing less.

Explination:
Following them is a choice, if you "break the rules" on something, just know that you had better be careful because if something goes wrong you are fully responsible for the consiquences if something goes wrong. Breaking rules not wrong, but very foolish in many cases. When you work "outside the rules" you are pretty much putting yourself into the hands of whatever authority figure happens to be in charge, and whatever they are feeling at the moment.

Before they came up with the ideas of laws, rulers did whatever they wanted, and people did whatever they wanted. If the people crossed the rulers or his wishes, they were subject to whatever he felt like doing. This generally worked out ok, except for the cases in which people were put to death because they annoyed the rulers.

When you break rules, you are reverting to a more primitave system of control. In some situations this is fine, many don't care, in others this can be very dangerous. The degree in which you break the rules will also entail the degree of the freedom those dealing with you have in assigning the consiquences. When you are working outside the rules, punishment can also be outside the rules.

Some rules are meant to be broken, just today you've probibly violated a few dozen obscure laws and regulations written down somewhere. (Like Hachiban VIII was saying about a law about annoying lizzards in a park). And all that means is that you are leaving more of your personal freedom in the hands and feelings of those that created those laws. In most cases, they just don't care. But if there is some city cop who is hell-bent on avenging those annoyed lizzards, be careful because he's got the full weight of the law behind him.

Morality:
As for the moral comparisons with breaking rules against murder and such. Those go along a similar thread, but you've got to establish a lot of things with morality and such before you can discuss that. Morality is inexplicably tied in with religion and discussions of God, and is difficult to discuss without going there. It is a very important part of this arguement. But is a very very long post, which I'm not sure I'd like to delve into.

Your guy's choice whether or not to take the thread in that direction.

Conclusion:
Rules/laws are merely contracts between those under control and those in authority. Breaking those rules/laws, places you into a more primative system of emotions and whims of those in control. Which can be ok, but can also be very foolish.


Following the rules is a choice, not a moral obligation.




BTW: Within the context of FIRST, games are only fun so long as everyone follows the rules, so I fully advocate for the full enforcement of clearly written rules to the tiniest detail. Within the context of venue rules and choices, (no internet???!!!), I don't have nearly the same respect for arbitrary regulations.