1519 - One Dual-Config Robot or Two Robots?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

It has to be a ROBOT to pass inspection (and there can be only one!), but to be a ROBOT it has to pass inspection.

...interesting.

Which is exactly why we are having this debate.

In past years, ROBOT was pretty much defined as anything connected to the RC (in case of breaking, for points determination). This year? Not that specific.

[Mike Harrison]

All discussion aside, I think it's totally awesome that they managed to make TWO functioning robots make weight, when some teams find that they have one robot that weighs as much as two FIRST robots nearing the end of build season. Also I think it's just crazy that they came up with this idea and ran with it, never would this have crossed my mind.

Kudos to 1519!

[EricH]

I took a good, close look at the GDC's response. I examined every rule referenced. The only rule that might be broken, as the rules are written, is the definition of Robot, which is ambiguous at best when examined.

In my opinion, 1519 built ONE robot with TWO configurations. (One was a drivebase, the other was a drivebase with an arm.)

I'm pretty sure that "ROBOT" will be clearly defined next year. Otherwise, the first question the Q&A gets should be, "Please clarify the definition of Robot, as it is currently circular."

[Paul Copioli]

All,

I have read most of the posts and, although the response from GDC was poor, the basic robot structure item is really what gets me.

I am in the robot industry (and that may be the reason for my bias), but a pile of electronics is never, ever considered a basic robot structure. Would the wires and furnace and pipes of a house be considered the basic building structure? No way.

I do not think 1519 lawyered the rules, but the flaw in the logic was assuming the electronics are the basic robot structure.

Maybe the simple test in the future should be: the basic robot structure should be considered a collection of parts / assemblies that can move under power in at least one degree of freedom.

When I first saw the post, I thought "there is no way that can be considered one robot." The intent was clear to me, but I have been wrong before (see blocking in hybrid thread).

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

All,

I have read most of the posts and, although the response from GDC was poor, the basic robot structure item is really what gets me.

I am in the robot industry (and that may be the reason for my bias), but a pile of electronics is never, ever considered a basic robot structure. Would the wires and furnace and pipes of a house be considered the basic building structure? No way.

I do not think 1519 lawyered the rules, but the flaw in the logic was assuming the electronics are the basic robot structure.

Maybe the simple test in the future should be: the basic robot structure should be considered a collection of parts / assemblies that can move under power in at least one degree of freedom.

When I first saw the post, I thought "there is no way that can be considered one robot." The intent was clear to me, but I have been wrong before (see blocking in hybrid thread).

The problem is that "robot" and "Basic robot structure" were never defined. You are defining it by your own Paradigms. Being in the robotics industry only reinforces your Paradigm and makes it more difficult to see the other argument in a fair and unbiased light.

1519 should be praised for "trying to break the mold" instead of punished. Under the current rules 1519 did no wrong, instead they tried something innovative, and for that they were told that they could not compete with one of their configurations.

It's the same as if the GDC stated "oh, we didn't mean for robots to shoot the ball ... thats not hurdling and is illegal". They could say this because they've never defined if a robot can / cannot be touching the ball when hurdling. It's our interpretation of the rules (through our Paradigms) that tells us that shooting is within the rules.

JM(NS)HO

[Ty Tremblay]

I believe the problem comes down to this:

A team's INTERPRETATION of the rules versus the GDC's INTENTION of the rules.

This "intention" word seems to have shown up quite frequently in the Q&A. The GDC seems to have developed a vision of how they want this game to be played. And they seem to be allowing this vision to affect their rulings in the Q&A.

There appear to be only two ways to remedy this:

1) The GDC needs to put their "intentions" in the 2009 rule book.

2) The GDC needs to refrain from ruling based upon their "intentions" and rule purely by the rules as they are written.

[Francis-134]

So as a bit of history:

In 2002 (so I've been told) team 190 had what they called the "lunchbox". Basicaly, the entire electronics board and the rotating light (good old rotating light ) was removable and could be carried around and even placed on the field. The box was completely covered by lexan and had velcro on the bottom of it to aid in sticking it to the floor. In several matches where the robot was not functional, they would remove the lunchbox and stick it in a corner of the field in the endzone. Once the match began (no autonomous remember), they would hit the E-Stop button, causing the rotating light to stop spinning.

While this was only done in a few matches, it acutally made them win a few! In one instance, the opposing alliance wanted to maximze their ranking points and made the match as close as possible. Well, they forgot to count the little lunchbox sitting in the endzone in the corner and the bonus it got for being there at the end of the match.

Now obviously, this was done during a very different time in FIRST's history. The rule at that period in time read that in any single configuration, the robot must be able to pass inspection. Similarly, 2002 was a pretty crazy year for rules in FIRST (tape measures, rovers, file card drives etc.). Personaly, I would like to return to this period in FIRST because I like to see innovative solutions to complex problems.

In a game where the best strategy is to constantly turn left and throw a ball over a bar, something different is always appreciated.

[Racer26]

I agree with icdumbpeeps305, the GDC has been using the buzzword of 'intent' far too often this year. They want us to be creative, and yet, when we become creative with the interpretation (note: creative interpretation != bending the rules), they accuse us of "lawyering" the rules.

The GDC should know best of all of us (note: I've only been involved since 2003) that FIRST isn't about the game. Its not about how they intended to see the game played. Its about how teams can design and implement radical solutions to the daunting tasks laid out by the GDC.

I say, LET 1519 PLAY! I would be happy to lose a match to such a well designed MULTI-MECHANISM ROBOT. Sadly, its already too late, according to TIMS, BAE was their only FIRST sanctioned event this year. At least they've earned themselves notoriety as one of few teams who've instigated rule changes.

[Danielle H]

I'm sorry that I haven't had time to go through all 8 pages, and so I don't know if this has been said, and I'm sorry if it has, but I read the GDC's response, and frankly, it seems like they talked themselves in a circle.

None of the rules they referenced have to do with specifically defining the basic components of a ROBOT, which would be vital in this case. If a ROBOT was defined as merely a drivetrain and some electronics, then it looks like they have two robots, because Fezzik and Speed Racer have different structures used for drive trains, even if they have the same electronics. But, if a ROBOT is defined as having 1 RC, etc, then they fit the rules as their electronics were being transferred.

And honestly, I was a little bit appalled at the last statement in the GDC's response, as it seemed to be very insulting and disrespectful of the team. By reading most of the first page of this thread, and skimming through subsequent responses from members of the 'offending' team, I see clearly that they were not looking for loopholes. It was merely their interpretation of the rules. They were not necessarily 'splitting hairs' or 'lawyering,' and to say so is purely judgmental and not constructive whatsoever.

Needless to say, I think the entire decision should have hinged on the basic definition of a robot, which is NOT CLEAR this year, no matter how clear the GDC thinks it is.

EDIT: My last statement sounded harsh, so let me justify it... what I mean to say is, when the GDC comes up with something and they write it down, naturally their rules are going to make sense and sound clear to them because they're the ones that wrote it; they know what they meant when they wrote it. But we, as outsiders to the process, have nothing more to go on than the written rules and our interpretation of said rules. The GDC might think the definition of a ROBOT is clear, but, obviously from reading some of these posts, it isn't as clear as they might think, and a more specific definition should be taken into heavy consideration for subsequent years.

[Joachim]

I suggest the game development folks get someone like a technical documentation writer, a physics or math text editor, or a contract lawyer on the rules final editing team. Careful review of the rules by someone with the right skills could cut down on rulings and Q&A answers, like the one here, that seem to say "do what we meant, not what we said." The same step would benefit FTC and FLL too.

And in cases where teams find a way, under an un-strained reading of the rules, to do something different than what was intended, it would be preferable to acknowledge the gap between the rules and the intent, and fill the gap, rather than to support the intended meaning by using strained interpretations as if they were plain.

[Chris Fultz]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

I have never seen a FIRST robot without wheels, treads or another method of moving the robot base.

There actually was such a robot at the Western Michigan Regional, 2006 I think.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

There actually was such a robot at the Western Michigan Regional, 2006 I think.

Exactly, apparently there was a ramp only at some regional last year as well. But I didn't know about them and I hadn't seen them, so my perception of what an FRC robot is would require it to have a means of moving the base.

This proves that our perceptions are not a good basis for decisions that should be clearly spelled out by the rules.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Vikesrock

Exactly, apparently there was a ramp only at some regional last year as well. But I didn't know about them and I hadn't seen them, so my perception of what an FRC robot is would require it to have a means of moving the base.

This proves that our perceptions are not a good basis for decisions that should be clearly spelled out by the rules.

That would be 702, L.A. 2007.

I think this thread is getting off-topic, and the issue is resolved. Admittedly, not necessarily resolved satisfactorily, but with the team only having one event, it's in the past.

[Elgin Clock]

/wayyyy off topic.


Since the GDC didn't specify what a "ROBOT" was too clearly this year unlike previous years, let's go to another source.

According to Wikipedia, we technically only kinda/sorta build ROBOTS...

We build Telerobots apparently sometimes as well.

• a remotely operated vehicle is sometimes considered a robot[8] (or telerobot).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot


Interesting.
That footnote 8 source btw... NASA.
Yay for clarification! (Or should I say Yay for even more confusion?)

[Chrisms]

I think the problem here, forgive me if it's been stated, this thread is massive... IS that you have *two* seperate entities that function on their own. If it were two "configurations" to me, it would be the exact same parts, being modularly changed. Not two completely different drive bases. Two me, two configurations would be "arm on. arm off" or, alternatively, if you're drive train is modular "omni wheels, or we can swap them out for regular tank drive" But the fact that, to me, it looks like two seperate entities, both with their independent drive systems, motors, and sensors, makes me tend to agree with FIRST on this one. you have two robots. Two amazing robots at that, i have no idea how you managed to make weight, we always have to put ours on a diet at the end of build, i can't see what we'd do if we had double the drive base.