An unnamed team that is NOT attending Atlanta, has a unique tetra grabber it is considering giving away to any Atlanta-bound team.
The hope is that there might be a team whose robot could benefit from this grabber, and improve its chances at winning the “big show.”
There would be no strings attached to this offer, no recognition, no obligation to even use the grabber. A complete and fully functional multi-tetra grabber would be waiting for you in Atlanta in the hopes that it could somehow help your team.
[End Rumour]
So… if such a rumour was true, would anyone take this team up on their offer?
You know the first thing that came to mind when I read the thread title was the mental image of a kitten stuck inside a tetra grabber, and a robot trying to stack kittens. Very, very disgruntled kittens. (I’m really tired).
And because I don’t like going off topic (too much)…
I think I’d feel bad winning if I was using somebody else’s creation. Making it into a question of morality rather than legality (that it to say, if it was legal, although it seems it would not be) I wouldn’t feel right using it.
The transfer of this gripper to the team didnt occur during the build season, at a competition, or during a fix it window, if it is coming from a team it’s not coming from a “vendor” and it isn’t a COTS part, thus making it illlegal for thethe reciving team to use
The transfer would be occuring at the competition. Presumably the gripper was actually made in the legal confines of the season. The real question comes down to whether collaboration is legal. If a team is allowed to use parts built by another team, then I think the part is legal. If this part is illegal, then collaboration isn’t legal.
188 does not meet FIRST’s definition of VENDOR (They cannot sell one to whoever wants it, nor can they fabricate and ship it in two weeks or whatever it is) nor is it a COTS part.
Whatever team that chose to accept the grabber would have needed to fabricate it themselves during build, or a fix it window, or at competition, for it to be legal.
Cory there are no guidelines on collaboration. The part is legal. It is not being sold but given. What defines collaboration? Who defines it? What are the guidelines? Precedents have not been set. This is a form of GP. Can a team give a part to another team at an event? So many questions and no answers.
Team 22 breaks their arm, they know 254 has a spare, they go get it, slap it on the robot, and they’re good to go.
This is legal, because it’s an identical spare.
Whichever team chose to use 188’s grabber clearly would not be replacing their own with an identical spare, so it would be considered an upgrade (not made by the team during build, fix it window, or competition, not from a vendor, and not a COTS part) therefore making it illegal.
If they get it from another team they did not make it therefore it is not legal?
If a team comes to an event with an extra legal arm and sees a team without one, can they give it to them to improve the other team? Or if a team has a prebuilt Dewalt with , say a globe motor ready to go, can they give it to another team?
So I’ve changed my mind. The part is illegal, and collaboration is illegal. To quote the part use flowchart (presumably definitive in legality):
Is the part or material off-the-shelf or is it custom made by the team after the start of the 2005 Kickoff? (See Robot Section)
“The” team implies the team using the part must build the part if it’s not COTS. Other teams surely aren’t Suppliers, so… You could still get around the rule for collaboration by saying another team is just being contracted to fabricate things for you, I suppose, and say this this part is illegal because it’s being delivered outside of the fix-it and build windows, I suppose.
But in all seriousness, I appreciate all the comments thus far, and am looking forward to all the future ones.
I’m curious to see what resolution(s) there are in terms of legality - especially since this exchange seems very similar to collaboration.
I’m even more curious to people’s interpretation of the “spirit” behind this kind of an exchange. Is it one team trying to help another? Should this be discouraged? Or is it one team gaining a blatantly unfair advantage?
I don’t know the answers to any of these, but experience tells me the CD community is more than capable of providing adequte insight.
So now you are saying that collaboration is illegal because the team did not make the part and it is not readily available to all teams within the proper time frames.
