Are we the only team where there are STILL mentors at the beginning of week 4 who have not yet read the rules completely, but insist on wasting student’s time arguing with them about their decisions? This happens every year, very tiring…
We sometimes have this problem. I suggest dedicating one particular student on the team as “the rule guy/girl” and have them be the say-all as to whether a scenario is legal or not. This way, as long as the rules person does their job right, the mentors have no reason to argue with you about rules, especially if they are incorrect.
What you talking about I’m always right…
No but on a serious note from a mentors stand point here is what I expect when I walk into a discussion about something two things need to be brought to the table.
- A level clear head open to different opinions.
- Examples and information for an idea
Just because an idea is against the rules doesn’t mean all information within the idea is invalid. When presented with something that isn’t legal hear it out (unless it is of course ridiculous or against what FIRST stands for) then the burden of proof is on you to pull out the rule book point and say something along the lines of “According to the rule book or manual where my finger is pointing I don’t think that is an option.”
At the same time when you are against an “idea” you are not against the person presenting the idea you are against the idea. Don’t make things personal. Regardless of it being a student, a mentor, or a guest coming an idea is an expression and disrespecting that expression is very rude. FIRST is about promoting growth and thought not about making people feel scared and vulnerable for speaking up.
My final bit of thought as a mentor is that I know I joke a lot, but I don’t ever know what students are thinking. So when I step up and call myself a mentor I am stepping up to a standard. Everyone who I influence is allowed to hold me to that standard. When a student goes up to me and infront of other students or alone goes “Hey I know what you did there you thought was funny or whatever but it crossed a line…” At that point as someone who takes the position seriously I am all ears.
Conversation is but an ocean where the best ideas sail gently on calm seas not storms of frustration.
This can sometimes be a problem with new mentors. Our team has a team handbook with team rules for students and mentors to avoid situations like this. It is mandatory for all students to read and understand the game rules. Mentors and volunteers cannot participate in any design/strategy discussions unless they’ve read the game rules.
It’s important to understand that mentors are always trying to do their best to help. Sometimes they are too busy to read the rules or don’t understand the importance. I highly recommend that you speak to your team coach and request that he/she speak to the mentors. He/she can provide the mentor(s) with a computer with the game manual loaded, point them to the important sections, and ask them to spend the build session reading. I’m sure that a simple conversation and explanation will resolve this. Good luck!
I find this to be a problem with students rather than mentors. It’s expected that everyone read the rules on our team.
Bear in mind that if someone proposes an idea outside of the rules, it doesn’t mean they haven’t read them. Maybe they didn’t understand some certain nuance, or misinterpreted some aspect. Rather than be confrontational, suggest you don’t believe that their idea is within the rules. It becomes incumbent on that person to show you how it follows the rules, whether that be student or mentor.
On kickoff day, when we return to the shop, and everyone on the team is present, we do an entire group rule reading using a projector and a student reader volunteer. We sometimes pause for discussions or clarifications. We note ambiguities, if something deserves a Q&A question. This way all of the students and mentors have gone through the rule book at least once. Of course, most of us will revisit the manual many times over for reminders and rule clarification throughout the season.
I’d bet the house that a majority of the mentors on my team haven’t read a majority of the rules. I’d bet lunch with each that I’m the only one who has. <sigh>
We learned several years ago that if you don’t sit down with everyone at the very beginning of the year and read the rules together, there will always be some people who never read them. The only way to make sure everyone is on the same page is to read the rules as a team, immediately following Kickoff. It segues well into a strategy and scoring discussion anyway.
What he said. Its the most boring two hours ever, but its incredibly worth it.
Alternatives involve grouping up and having each group read an entire section and then report the rules to everyone else in some sort of condensed but accurate way.
And obviously the team doesn’t need to read the whole manual, just the arena and game sections, as well as any game-specific/changed robot rules.
The members who care will read the manual again in their free-time (as they should) but now hopefully everyone has a reasonably accurate understanding of the rules and won’t spend build time arguing for/concentrating on something that’s illegal*.
(This is not particularly helpful for your current situation)
*unless there is a grey area for troll-bots to squeeze under. 
And tournament. At very least the Qualification Seeding section. It never ceases to surprise me the number of folks who don’t understand what you have to do to seed high.
For folks in Districts, I’d also suggest reading how you qualify for DCMP and CMP.
Yup, we do the exact same thing, except it’s the following day, and all day brainstorming session. Everyone is required to be at this meeting where we go over all the rules, discuss scenarios, strategies and start to figure out how the team wants to play the game. And eventually a robot design.
Has this information been made available? I remember Frank’s Blog mentioning that they’re working through the translation from WLT to QA, but I haven’t heard of final results.
A side note on this post is I’m guessing that your team is having trouble on the rule interpretation itself as well. I would suggest when arguments occur bring out the rules and point out why you think whatever situation you are having an issue over is illegal or not. Our team always has an updated copy of the manual open for situations just like the one your team is having. If your mentor or teammates are still having issues over a certain point then first get more people involved from a discussion standpoint in order to get more clarity. If you are still troubled then ask the Q & A which interpretation of the rule is legal. Try not to get so heated over issues like this to the point that it ruins your build season. Remember that mentors are there to help you grow and develop as students, even if you think they are “out to” argue and “get” you*, and that FRC is meant to be a Fun experience and opportunity that you should enjoy.
*I had a personal, and partially shameful, experience like this with a mentor during my Senior and only Student year in FRC. We now are very good friends and now I have the privilege of mentoring her son. Looking at it from both sides of the table will open up you eyes.
Dunno, haven’t read the rulebook
I don’t think it’s been released yet, which is somewhat annoying.
Rules, we don’t need no stinking Rules.
Speaking for myself, and not all mentors. I read the majority of the rules fully and look for the “Loop-Holes” that may cause confusion later on. As for the Tournament Rules, I’m not usually as well versed on those, but I have at least read them once. My fun as a Mentor is to follow the updates and catch the students who didn’t know an update was released.
I have to agree that not all ideas, even if against a rule, are bad ideas. They are just ideas which can’t be implimented and the discussion of such must be civil and professional. This is the most important lesson we can teach. As a mentor we all know that in the real world, and it doesn’t matter what line of work you’re in, there will be disagreements and how you handle them is the most important aspect to how you are preceived and a Professional.
Good Luck, & Have FUN
roger
As a mentor helping with the team’s robot design and fabrication (and as a sometime Robot Inspector), I make sure I know all the Robot rules. The electrical rules are especially vital for my role as a Control System Advisor. I admit that the Game and Tournament rules are less important to me personally, as I’m not going to be playing the game myself.
Dealing with mentors is tricky - it’s a volunteer gig, so you don’t have the freedom to demand much that they don’t want to do. Respectfully handling disagreements is paramount.
I find the phrase "Show me in the manual where _________ " helpful when I am confident that the rules support my position. At the very least, it will reveal if someone is simply being bullheaded (they won’t look in the rules, but will continue arguing). It changes the conversation from arguing on what you remember the rules to be to the actual wording of the rules. This puts you on the track to an answer, rather than on track to the better arguer.
Also I need to mention that while I don’t memorize the rules perfectly and don’t read them or bother to read them well enough to memorize, what I do memorize is the structuring. When I need to know a rule I look it up and I am able to do so quickly. Generally speaking between that, keeping up with qna and, keeping up with delphi, and reading everytime I think I find a loop hole I eventually get to the point where I am famliar.
This entire thread bothers me.
If you don’t know the rules, you shouldn’t be designing a robot. End of story.
We hold the students to this expectation; adults should be held to the same standard.
Ignorance is not an excuse, and misinformation is worse than no information.
Which is completely valid but some mentors do not have the capability to sit down and read the manual in one go due to time constraints. Some students are incapable of reading the game manual effectively. It is one thing to read but understanding is diferent. The information in the manual is useless unless utilized and you can’t use what you don’t understand. For those mentors in this position my advice would be the same students do your best as long as that happens I won’t give flak