I’m aware. I believe this aspect of “help” for other teams was intended to be specifically disallowed. It’s likely incredibly difficult to allow teams to give their alliance partners limited cheesecake while still disallowing teams from bring in practice bots #1 and #2 to hand to their alliance partners.
Why do these things seem risky now?
According to that above blurb, as long you’re not providing an entire major mechanism, you’re not restricted from helping teams in anyway. Obviously teams can’t just hand out hangers and ramps anymore, but that’s such a small part of the assistance we see in FRC. The rules still encourage teams to help teams with their own robots, so I’m having a hard time seeing what’s at risk or where the lines may be blurred.
18 Likes
Thanks Karthik, good clarifying question.
I think the risks are
- the difference between “MECHANISM” and “MAJOR MECHANISM”
- the definition of “attempts to exploit loopholes”
The clarifying blue box has lots of examples, but none are absolute and the words “probably” and “generally” are used.
So the risk comes in at “how much can my kids help other kids?” and “How much collaboration is too much?”
Judging intent to exploit these rules is going to be very contentious. We’re at risk of being accused of cheating, when we’re just trying to find the line of what is legal.
Separate question, has FIRST attempted to police collaboration between teams in the rules set before?
-Mike
19 Likes
I follow what you’re saying now. Hopefully we can get some clarification via the Q&A over the next few months on the issues you brought up. Perhaps using examples from past games to get definitive answers, as opposed to wading in hypotheticals.
7 Likes
Given your experience in other robotics competitions, perhaps you can share some insight regarding your opinion of rule sets that leave “wiggle room” over in this thread. Rules that give authority to tournament officials or that rely on the intent or spirit of a rule seem to be a pretty widespread feature of many robotics/engineering competitions.
I remember in the first attempt to stop cheesecake where FIRST banned giving teams mechanisms, someone made a long post about how the wording stopped teams from giving people gearboxes or other benign things at competition (EDIT: found it: Dangerous precedent set by Q&A 461: Loaning Parts/Assemblies to other teams). The new ruleset is IMO much more clear on that specific example (COTS assemblies are allowed) but I can see how you’d be worried about being accused of cheating in grayer areas.
The rule then was quickly repealed. It’s interesting to see how much CD’s opinion of cheesecake has changed in just a few years.
The new bag day rules clearly rule out cheesecaking in the future games. What is everyone’s thought?
1 Like
It clearly doesn’t make cheesecake illegal 
((PS, We can probably just contain this into the single thread regarding the rule changes))
3 Likes
You are correct it doesn’t totally rule out a cheesecake although it does rule out many forms of it. Fair point, somehow I missed that thread.
2 Likes
It specifically bans cheesecaking of “major mechanisms,” which include manipulators and climbers. That’s almost all cheesecaking.
3 Likes
Although a 1114 and 900 cheesecake would not necessarily be banned. Or would it?
The parts that were built by 1114 before 900 was involved (which if I recall, were the entire harpoon mechanisms) would violate the new rule (each, to me, meet the criteria of MAJOR MECHANISM). The rest (the drive chassis and integrating such to the aforementioned mechanisms) would pass since 900 was actively involved.
My opinion (Not an RI!): Cheesecake is legal, but only if the recipient fabricated it themselves (with help from the giving team). Kits don’t pass (unless they’re COTS), but nothing to stop a joint effort at the event (or for that matter, before the event)? Bolt-on cheesecake, on the other hand, is dead.
1 Like
No ban for cheesecake, only some teams will take advantage of no-bag iterations …so plenty of room for cheesecake.
But there is a ban on major cheesecake tho?
I1 requires that the ROBOT and its MAJOR MECHANISMS were built by its
team, but isn’t intended to prohibit or discourage assistance from other
teams (e.g. fabricating elements, supporting construction, writing software,
developing game strategy, contributing COMPONENTS and/or
MECHANISMS, etc.)
Like that will fly “discourage” and the rest =weak waffle language
I mean yes to a point all rules are only as good as mentor and staff enforcement, but this will curb a lot of cheesecaking among the major teams who have a lot to lose from breaking the rules.
“Discourage” is NOT breaking any rules. Got a suction L3 snap on while toiling at L2 for next match?..bring it on.
I see what you’re saying. Frankly I think this rule is at a good enough place to encourage healthy cooperation in FRC.
1 Like
Maybe you are right, maybe I am right
BAN and EJECT would be better wording to avoid team “confusion” over whats allowed
You can argue either way.
The best way to put it is that if the recipient team does enough of the work for them to count it as “we did it”, it’s legit. If the recipient team simply bolts on something given to them by another team, then it probably isn’t.
Example: Suction-cup climbers. If a team shows up with the material for one, and works with another team to build one, probably OK. If a team shows up with one already built, probably not OK.
1 Like