This is probably preaching to the choir, but if it helps even one team I’ll consider it a success.
Everyone should have read the rule manual thoroughly at the beginning of the season. You probably should have read it a few times, talked it over with your teammates, then read it a few more times. It’s now more than a month since kickoff and hopefully everyone is putting the finishing touches on their robots. When you first read the rule manual you probably had an idea of what your robot would look like, and chances are the robot that you have now doesn’t look exactly like that.
With less than a week left in the build season, this is the perfect time to brush up on your rules knowledge and make sure that your robot follows all of them. Maybe there was a rule that you missed on your first read through. Maybe you ignored a rule that didn’t apply to your initial idea but now does apply. Maybe you read the rule at first, but over time mis-remembered it. It’s much better to find out that your robot breaks a rule now than during inspection. I highly suggest reading through the rules in detail*, as if you had never seen them before, to make sure you didn’t miss anything.
Good luck to everyone with the rest of your build season and at competition!
* That means reread ALL of the rules, not just the “interesting” ones. Read the rules you might have skipped over on your first read through. Incl: match setup, safety, conduct, bumpers, electronics, pneumatics, and tournament rules.
Preach it more. The amount of questions asked on here and the Q&A speaks volumes about who actually read and discussed the manual vs. who didn’t (I don’t mean to insult the people who ask the questions, but they should’ve read the manual in the first place).
Slowly, carefully, word by word, taking your time as if it was the last corndog of the summer. Read the rules front to back. And when you are done with the first pass read it again. Slowly. Maybe read it out loud as a group, with one person reading each rule and moving around the room. Or read it to the cat. Once you are done with the second full pass, think about what you have read. If you completed both reads in under 20 minutes, consider reading the rules in backwards order.
So you have my support in getting people to read the rules!
I believe you will find that isn’t the case. Asking a dumb question that you could have easily answered yourself will reflect poorly on you once you enter professional life.
You also have to remember that rules can change from the beginning of build season to the end. Because of Q&A questions and Team Updates the game can change in either details or greatly. Either way it still matters. So a brush up on the rules at this time is not only a good idea, but I would recommend it especially if you haven’t fully kept up with the team updates.
I’ve seen in my career people who were “experts” treat people who asked a question like the questioner was stupid, even saying things like “That’s a dumb question.” This only led to the person asking the question not to go to the expert for answers. When someone has a question and those on CD reply with READ THE RULES, it’s getting very close to calling the questioner stupid.
I agree those situations occur, but extending that analogy here is a little ridiculous in my opinion. I don’t know what you expect people to do in a situation where they’re swamped by questions easily found in the rule book. They point out the rule applicable and advise people to read the rules.
Some point out the rule and leave it at that. Others just say to read the rules.
One could easily answer all the programming questions with “learn to program” and we wouldn’t need to have CD. Or maybe we could just change the CD webpage to have the phrase “figure it out yourself”.
Just because you figured out the solution to the problem easily doesn’t mean everyone else can.
I use a “means test” on CD, as with most things in life. Feel free to add this to the giant list entitled “reasons why life is not fair”.
My expectations are that the questioner has read the manual, or at least opened it in any vaguely modern PDF reader with a search function and done a couple searches. If they obviously have not expended that small amount of effort to resolve their issue, why should I? I am a big fan of the “teach a student how to solve their issue” rather than just spoon feeding them the answer on the team I am associated with. RTFM is a fairly gentle version of this. RTFM tells them where to find the answer (the Fine Manual) , how to find the answer (Read), and conveys the expectation of investing some effort in resolving the question.
If the answer is obvious and easily found in the manual I tend not to answer those type of questions, or answer by citing the rule. If the question is trying to understand a point raised in the manual, then I am far more likely to answer it and attempt to explain. If the question is raising an interesting issue, that is not addressed then I am even more likely to enter the discussion. While I obviously do not speak for any one else, the behavior I observe of many mentors and senior students is at least somewhat consistent with this. My personal means test also tends to get higher as the season moves on. Obviously everyone has not read the manual kickoff weekend. Everyone should have read it by now.
My expectations are somewhat lowered for issues that are addressed by the Q&A. While I cannot understand why any team would not have someone following the Q&A as changes often appear there before the next Manual Update and you want to avoid having to backtrack as your brilliant solution becomes rules non-compliant, I do concede that lower resourced teams, and new teams might have not understood what a valuable resource the Q&A is.
If I teach someone how to find the answer then they (a) have learned something, (b) become more self sufficient, and (c) may be able to pass this learning on. I fail to see how that is not a “good thing”. If I just spoon feed them an answer they have learned nothing except my answer, which might be wrong, especially if I am just some random guy in the internet.
How about we assume that the person asking an obvious question isn’t stupid, but rather, inexperienced. Maybe instead of saying “RTFM” we spend a few seconds showing them where they can find the information with a simple copy/paste or link so they know better where to look. If they are a new student/mentor, they are probably overwhelmed with information and just need some support in navigating FRC stuff. If you have time to reply with snark and need to say “no offense, but” then perhaps you could instead work on educating rather than denigrating. Let’s try to remember why we are here.
I never assume the person asking a question, any question is stupid. However, I may make some assumptions about their behaviour/attitude. I expect people to make some efforts to help themselves, before they ask and in many cases expect others to help them. This is my expectation with my staff at work, with my children, and with the students on the team I am associated with.
Expecting someone to look for information in the manual that First provides at kickoff, and talks about extensively is, in my opinion, a pretty low expectation. Feel free to set your expectations and standards to whatever level works for you. I expect people to at least make some attempt to find the information, and if I know it is fully and completely covered in the manual, I think that RTFM is a completely reasonable response. If they seem completely confused and lost, as I noted, I will likely cite the relevant rule.
If your reply was directed at me, please note, I never said not feel the need to add “no offense but”. I do spend lots of time educating. I spend significant time teaching students how to to research their questions/issues. I spend lots of time mentoring. I even answer questions and contribute to discussions on CD. As stated I don’t spend much time spoonfeeding answers to obvious questions, nor to I think doing so serves any purpose, other than potentially encouraging folks to ask more obvious questions rather than learning how to become more self reliant.
It wasn’t directed at you, specifically. If it had been, I would have quoted you and/or replied to your specific post as I am doing now. It was directed at the folks who reply with snark and rudeness.
In my classroom and my home and the shop I have a pretty good sense for what the person has tried, or I can at least ask them what they have tried. That isn’t to say that sometimes I am always patient if I feel they should know something or know how to figure something out. I often reply with “have you consulted the oracle?(my code for Google)”
On Chief Delphi, I cannot assume what the questioner has tried and what their experiences are, nor is there time to ask, so it’s a little difficult for me to have minimum expectations of a certain level. That’s my personal bent.
I’m sure you provide valuable educational experiences for the young people you are with and in no way do I mean to cast aspersions on your efforts to develop independence in them. (I’m pretty sure that sentence was just a flowery, long-winded way of saying “no offense, but…” In which case, I just violated my own suggestion.)