Team Update 4

[CIM]

Just to be clear, the restriction is not really what bothers me this moment. It’s stupid and blatantly targets Vex aluminium, but I understand that restrictions are part of the game, and they make it fun / challenging / etc. If the update ended there, I’d be upset but move on. The part of the post I quoted is what really pushed me as slimy politics.

@JaneYoung

1. What is so ruffling about “and their kits”?

What’s ruffling about “and their kits” in particular is that FIRST has equated believing in its ideals with giving a particular vendor money. They said more or less that if you love FIRST you should be buying Lego’s kits. That is what’s absolutely infuriating above all else. So because I don’t like FTC, and I don’t want to buy their in my opinion inferior kit, I don’t support FIRST? If they really don’t want my support just because I disagree on a platform of choice for something - I don’t know what to say anymore.

2. Who is making this a seeming political situation?

Honestly, it looks like Lego is pushing FIRST’s buttons here.

[maltz1881]

Ok I am not sure what all the whining is about but I look at it this way…

1. You don’t have to build a minibot if you chose not to…it would be a mistake not to though.
2. You received that kit (1/2 of it) for the price of shipping.
3. You don’t have to use the NXT if you don’t want to.
4. This is an important anniversary year for FIRST. I look at it as a celebration on all levels.
   5.You get to build 2 robots this year!! YES!!!
5. Most of us ( or at least I hope we do) support at least 1 FLL team. If you don’t then you need to jump on the bandwagon. This is your farm team for FRC!!
6. Yes maybe FIRST could have worded it better…but hey there have been times when all of us could have worded something better…except me I am the Queen of Perfectland!!!
7. All the time you spent on here complaining, you have had that mini up and running. 1 of my former FLL kids who is now FRC had it together in a couple hours and shimming up the pole.
8. VEX isn’t Textris…as much as I would like to use those parts they aren’t part of FIRST anymore.
9. Welcome to the real world boys and girls!! Work can change on a dime are we going to suck it up or whine to the boss!!!

There I had my say… NOW GET OUT THERE AND BUILD BUILD BUILD!!!

[xSAWxBLADEx]

@Chris Fultz

You could tell them that sometimes in FIRST / work / school / relationships / customers / bosses / employees / governments / (fill in the blank) that we have rules and restrictions and limitations that we don’t necessarily agree with or understand, and that we have a choice in how we deal with those situations. And you can teach them that when we are in those situations, we can work to find solutions or we can complain.

You could tell them that you don’t agree with the rules that have been put in, but that you are going to work within them. And then later you could write a letter to FIRST, explaining your concerns.

And you could read some of the recent posts on this forum and ask what types of Mentors and Role Models some of us are being to those students who are on here reading.

EXACTLY!!!

[Duke461]

Is it just me, or has everybody not read the note about the edit to R92-H?
“The original intent of R92-H was to allow teams to use raw aluminum. We appreciate that the intent was not clear in the original verbiage, and for that, our apologies. Throughout the process, and especially in public statements, we have been transparent and unambiguous that the minibot is an opportunity for FIRST to prominently feature and reflect support for our family of programs. This is a golden opportunity to show that support, and we have taken advantage of it. We were clear in our comments at kickoff that we are using this competition, in part, to support FTC and FLL. There is no secret plan; it is a wide open plan. Supporting FIRST means supporting FTC and FLL and their kits.”
It’s not that big of a deal, guys. Saying your team isn’t a FIRST team anymore is radical. Kids like me who love everything about FIRST and the impact on our lives do not want to hear about everything that’s allegedly bad about robotics. For people like me, this is my life. And I don’t want to hear all this bashing on the most influential, educational, and inspirational program in the history of programs steered towards the kids of the future. We just need to ignore this. It’s just words in the 4th team update. And I think 20 years worth of actions speak louder than update #4’s worth of words. If the mentors can’t get over the clarifications of the GDC that has brought the world more kid-based, STEM related field influence in the history of the world, how can you expect a kid to not do the same?

[Molten]

I’m not going to say I like what is said any more then the next guy. I could go on about politics and my dislike of the move and everything as has already been said. Instead I have a different message to leave.

THANKS

Yes, thanks for treating us like adults and coming out and stating your motives for once. At least they openly stated it without doubt and aren’t hiding from the truth. They thought enough of us to not lie or hide the facts or to simply ignore us. I’d prefer this had been placed in the original manual, but I’m just glad that they came out and said it.

To anyone at FIRST that reads this, don’t mistake it for gratitude of the message. Just gratitude for you actually saying it.

[NorviewsVeteran]

I have a little adage I try to hold myself to: “Deal with it, or shut up and deal with it.”

Some of us should take a few minutes to step back, cool off under the collar, and maybe grab a sandwich.

[blackiceskier]

@BJC

So, yes, the restrictions suck. Is it unfair? Maybe.

However, FIRST does a fabulous job of preparing us students for real life. In “real” life there are restrictions that you might find unneccessary. There are often situations that you find “unfair.” Yet with all those times I have yet to find a situation where complaining has solved the problem. Instead, rise above and make do what what you have.

[snip]

In the end you have to make a decision. You can make a mini-bot that complies with the rules, or you can not make one at all.

A perfect example of this. Last year for our rookie test we had 4 mini teams that had to build a robot in one week to navigate a maze. We showed them how the maze was set up and gave them dimensions, but not the real maze. 2 days before their mini competition the got a glimpse at what the real maze looked like, one of the teams builders started to complain that their robot would not turn in the tight corners of the maze and asked me to make the maze larger just for him. We did not change it for him at all and nobody else has a complaint about the field. So needless to say dont change the rules and dont change the field CHANGE YOUR ROBOT because that’s the only thing you can truly control.

P.S the student who asked me to change the field did not make our team last year or this year because he argued that is was unfair and unjust, but that’s how competition and LIFE works.

[Kevin_Sevcik]

LOOK, LOOK! It’s a moderately on topic post that’s not about the FTC debacle!

@Prontopwnage

“<G39> ROBOTS and FEEDERS may not SCORE on opponent’s PEGS or de-score opponent’s GAME PIECES.” LOL thought that was kinda a given.

@ghostmachine360

Well, if the score gap was really large, and you had some extra pieces left in your feeder station, you could have (before the ruling, of course) thrown the game pieces over the feeder station wall onto one of the nearest opposing alliance’s pegs to shorten the scoring gap.

You two clearly aren’t thinking creatively enough. Scoring for your opponent makes loads of sense when there’s 9+ points sitting on the top row in the form of a completed LOGO. All you do is have your feeder score the wrong GAME PIECE for your opponent, and you wipe out the LOGO bonus. Scoring for your opponent to lower their score! I thought it was pretty brilliant and hilarious, personally. Anyways, I posted a question to the Q&A a while back that outlined this scenario. So I’m taking credit for the <G39> rule change in this update until anyone else admits to having a twisted enough mind to think that up.

However, I’m not taking credit for this:

@EricS-Team180

The updated clarification of is a breath of fresh air for the controls community. Kudos to Kevin Sevcik for bringing it up this morning and for the GDC to make a common sense clarification.

All I did was post about the rule change before someone else did. And show back up in the thread to nod along with everyone else and bring a little order to things. I suspect that the biggest push came from people who developed all the CAN technology and either wandered across the thread or were otherwise informed about the rule change.

[Trent_B]

@Kevin Sevcik

Anyways, I posted a question to the Q&A a while back that outlined this scenario. So I’m taking credit for the <G39> rule change in this update until anyone else admits to having a twisted enough mind to think that up.

I actually thought of it too but with using the robot however that could have been flagged for yellow carding under egregious behavior. But you aren’t the only twisted one :ahh:

[Nick_Lawrence]

Turf wars solve nothing.

When I first heard about the minibot being Tetrix-based, of course I was upset after spending hours and hours working with VEX and building a very successful program through it. I was also upset because FTC’s presence in Canada is slim to none, and I thought every team would jump on the free Tetrix kits available on I will not compare the two kits here, as my opinion is biased to VRC due to the extensive work I’ve put in with it.

I’m happy FIRST is trying to expose more students to STEM programs, and I always have been. I’m disappointed in the politically-heavy way they’re doing it.

Regardless, my team’s minibot will have VEX stickers proudly all over it, not to say we like VEX more, but to prove that we’re about expanding not just the FIRST program, but all STEM programs.

-Nick

[AaronUp]

@Chris is me

What’s ruffling about “and their kits” in particular is that FIRST has equated believing in its ideals with giving a particular vendor money.

lulz…where’d you order game pieces this year?

[Rich_Kressly]

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time seeing unfortunate things happen with the intermediate program, despite the best efforts of great people, I’d ask those of you who are having “visceral” reactions toward what you’re reading to think carefully before acting (My buddy Chris has some great ideas on how to deal with things, later) and help your team and its students to be successful as best you can - first and foremost - now.

Also, be very thoughtful and careful as to what terms you use and who you direct your displeasure toward. The “GDC” is a general term many people throw around here. Please remember that this committee is largely made up of volunteers, but also includes some FIRST employees for obvious reasons. I spent a few years working on the intermediate program GDC.

So, any time you associate the “GDC” with an activity and assign credit or blame, please understand, for those of us on the outside of that process, that there’s no way of knowing, for certain, what information and decisions are coming exactly from where or who’s recommendation leads to what action/ruling. Be mindful, if it’s here or in a letter later, that there’s no way for us to know what information comes from which portion, or all of the “GDC” under certain circumstances.

Peace … go build robots with kids and show them a better way to live their lives in the process. Years ago there was a local cover band I loved to go see play, The Vultures. On the back of their shirts was the motto, “Passion in the face of adversity.” It was good advice then, and it’s good advice now. Take your passions and direct them where they are most needed right how - toward your teams :).

Now…about minibots going vertical …

[cmass]

@JaneYoung

I have 2 questions:

1. What is so ruffling about “and their kits”?
2. Who is making this a seeming political situation?
   Jane

I don’t care that they limit minibot to Tetrix and some raw materials, that is a fine constraint that levels teams to some point.

My problem is that if you go to the FTC-Tetrix site:

http://parts.ftcrobots.com/store/default.aspx?CategoryID=164&by=9&c=1&bhcp=1

the parts are one price and another price when you go to the FRC-Tetrix site

(Classroom Solutions for STEM and STEAM | LEGO® Education).

In the real world, an organization uses it purchasing and political muscle to get a better price for its members.

In this case, First SEEMS to be letting FRC subsidize FTC or Lego. I don’t think Lego is starving! I have asked the question in the official forums and have not seen any answer. Maybe Update#4 is the answer?

Does not seem correct or fair. We are a well funded team and the difference in costs will not prevent us from building a minibot or two if we are successful. Not true for others.

[synth3tk]

Man, all this whining about how FIRST is being political, it reminds me of, oh, I don’t know, politics, businesses, other non-profits, and maybe even groups of people in general?

BTW, my team doesn’t give two flying monkeys about the whole FTC-vs-VRC debacle, and I had to bring them all up to speed before they knew why it was such a big deal to “the entire FIRST community (/sarcasm)”. Are they bummed that they can’t use anything their hearts desire? Sure. But are they fuming mad, ready to quit this excellent program, because we’ve got a classroom full of VEX kits that we can’t use? Nope. We’re too busy working on our hostbot and game strategy to care.

@Chris is me

What the hell am I supposed to tell a student who asks why we can’t use aluminium that has a pre drilled hole in it?

“Welcome to the real world”? If I worked at Google, why can’t I use my Windows-based notebook? They’re in high school now, kind of late to be sheltering them, much-less hiding seemingly asinine rules and restrictions.

@Chris is me

What am I supposed to tell them when …] non Tetrix catapult designs derailed by Update 1?

That a catapult was awfully out-of-place in terms of the intent of the mini-bot race, if common sense were applied?

@Chris is me

How can I rationalize all of the very, very public flaunting and politics of the FIRST organization that they catch wind of?

Tell them it’s not all sunshine and rainbows, and things don’t always go your way. Good luck finding a group of organized human beings that aren’t even remotely political.

No one is perfect. FIRST is not perfect, you’re not perfect, I’m not perfect. At the end of the day, people make mistakes, and people disagree with each other. But the beauty of choices, is just that. You don’t like it? Next year, switch your team to VEX/BEST/whatever. Before you do that, though, do me a favor: Take a poll at your next team meeting. Ask how many people hate FIRST so much for promoting FTC that they want to switch programs next year, then ask how many people are enjoying their time in FIRST enough to overlook this TRAGIC event and continue next year.

[Andrew_Schreiber]

@Andy Grady

It really disgusts me that I’m forced to use the crappy music player on my Droid X…why couldn’t Motorola just use Apple’s player in their code instead?

You get the point…

Well, if Apple made their player available for your hardware you could use it if you wanted. There are also a dozen other music players for Android available…

I get your point though.

@JaneYoung

It’s not falling apart.

Jane

No, it isn’t falling apart but a lot of the people I am seeing complain about these minibot rulings are some respected members of the FIRST community. I’m not saying they should have some special say but I am saying that if a large number of them disagree strongly with a decision it should really make us step back and ask ourselves why they are disagreeing.

@JaneYoung

I have 2 questions:

1. What is so ruffling about “and their kits”?

Because their kits are supplied by a for profit company that signed a contract with FIRST. I support FIRST, I support the ideas it stands for and I will do anything within my power to help any FIRST team (FRC, FTC, FLL, JFLL). THAT is supporting FIRST. Buying parts from a FIRST partner is not supporting FIRST it is supporting that partner. Now, if FIRST wants to mandate that we have to buy those parts to be competitive that is their prerogative. For some reason the wording reminds me of our former President’s use of the phrase “You are either with us or against us”. I disagree, nothing is ever that two sided, especially when it comes to inspiring the next generation.

After having played with the Tetrix kit a little I understand why it costs so much, it is really nice hardware. I just do not feel it is the proper tool for me to use to inspire our students. Can I still say I support FIRST? Can I still say I support the ideals and goals of an organization that changed my life? With this statement by the GDC I am not sure.

I understand the goal of bringing more awareness of the smaller competitions by using the larger one. I like the idea, I admire the desire to bring FTC and FLL to the same status as the “big robots”. Quite possibly the only thing I don’t like was that one little phrase. And, maybe there isn’t a rational reason why it bothers me so much, maybe I can’t explain it to you. I still don’t agree with it.

@cmass

I don’t care that they limit minibot to Tetrix and some raw materials, that is a fine constraint that levels teams to some point.

[Rant] This is the Superbowl of Smarts, why should the playing field be level?\Rant]

Now that I have said some pretty mean things about the GDC I have to give them a compliment. Thank you for doing exactly what we asked for. I feel that the rules this year have a clear intent behind them. If the intent is not clear it was mentioned in either the Kickoff broadcast or one of the blue boxes/ notes in the rulebook. I know you are catching a lot of flak for it but I think that clear and honest communication will only result in an improvement for the entire community. I don’t always agree with your intent but I appreciate you sharing it with us.

-Andrew

[Mr_I]

Can we all please take a deep breath and relax before pouncing on that “Post Reply” button? I doubt if anyone is really ready to leave FIRST just because they threw some limitations at us.

Like it or not, FIRST is a brand as well as a philosophy. As such, it is the interest of FIRST to say you have to use FIRST stuff. Just a fact of life, as many before pointed out.

Another thought to consider is the GDC put restrictions on the otherwise infinite number of variations that the minibots could evolve into. Aside from safety reasons (i.e., catapults), they’re trying to be realistic in terms of what the judges will have to evaluate in determining which ones are in fact legal minibots and which ones aren’t. So they put it simply as “FTC”.

And, yes, there’s desire to grow the FIRST community, etc. Personally I don’t see how FTC-based minibots will bring this about, but hey, I’m only a high school teacher and a FRC coach, maybe I don’t have the necessary experiences to understand the logic. So I do what I can do: I support my team and its students, and not rant about things I don’t know about.

So as maltz1881 said, “**NOW GET OUT THERE AND BUILD BUILD BUILD!!! **”

[jason701802]

@waialua359

The Chairman’s Award and other such FIRST initiatives include outreach and spreading not just the idea of FIRST, but STEM education as a whole.

Oh how I wish that were true.

@AaronUp

lulz…where’d you order game pieces this year?

No one ever said that the use of proprietary game pieces was any more just the the FTC requirements, but based on the price, I doubt AndyMark is making much, if any, profit. I would guess that the sale of the game pieces functions in a similar manner to FIRST Choice, where FIRST supplies the materials and AndyMark handles the distribution (please correct me if I’m wrong).

[dag0620]

@synth3tk

But are they fuming mad, ready to quit this excellent program, because we’ve got a classroom full of VEX kits that we can’t use? Nope. We’re too busy working on our hostbot and game strategy to care.

I can’t speak for others, but even though I am quite upset about this, I am in no way ready to quit. Like in any Group, you have people who get upset, sometimes fuming, about the politics. Now are they mad about a particular way something was done, yes, but at the end of the day we all agree about while were hear and the ideals. For me this ticks me off, but it’s not like it’s ruined my season. Honestly besides a couple questions about my FB status about this at the beginning of my day this morning, I haven’t thought about it throughout the build day.

[Tetraman]

<G49> ROBOTS may not attempt to POSSESS a GAME PIECE that is being POSSESSED by an opponent another ROBOT.

The Return of the A-Bomb, and a strategy that will most likely be used. I CAN NOT WAIT FOR COMPETITION!

[MagiChau]

@Tetraman

The Return of the A-Bomb, and a strategy that will most likely be used. I CAN NOT WAIT FOR COMPETITION!

Don’t forget to bring your video cameras to capture it. Though what is the A-Bomb? Unfamiliar with the term.