I see the top team in skills at Mecca Mayhem was removed from the tournament before alliance selection. Can we get some clarity on what would cause a team to be sent home and not do alliance selection? The comments for the livestream said something about a G4, mentor build.
As a coach, I’d love some clarity on what happened or what might happen to have a team get sent home?
I am curious if they handed in a notebook. I also wonder if they referenced where they got ideas from.
Both of these topics in the Q and A offer great insight, but how would this be handled if the team doesn’t hand in a notebook at all?
I think the GDC/RECF/Judges view the lack of clarity around this as a feature, not a bug. They want the flexibilty to make decisions about G4/G5 violations. The best advice, I think, is:
For teams to fully document and fully explain their robot
For teams that do collaborate with other teams, to ensure that the outcome of that collaboration is unique to their robot
For teams to NOT “hole count” robots they see online
For teams to be able to FULLY explain the code used in their robot
For teams to be able to demonstrate that the code used in their robot is not substantially the same as code on another team’s with whom they collaborated
All of my sources are secondhand so take what I say with a grain of salt though I bet they are mostly true.
Mecha conducted many G4 interviews before alliance selection. The team in question was a solo team and as such did not submit a notebook, not a great place to start. During the G4 interview they determined there was not enough evidence that he had not violated G4 and he was DQed.
Interestingly this DQ seems to have been more controversial than past ones. Some people believe that the team was in fact legit, normally DQ’s are more understood than this one.
Little off-topic, but false DQs, G4 ones especially are very interesting. What should happen if they aren’t “guilty”? Would they be owed anything? The team in question wasted hotel+registration fees which are fairly significant.
Hopefully this adds little more context, though it is not the full story.
By the RECF’s definition, there can be no “false G4 DQs”:
It is the responsibility of each Team to be able to explain and defend the design, construction, and programming of their Robot if questioned by referees, inspectors, Event Partners , or judges. Teams should be prepared to describe their design process, justify design decisions, and demonstrate a full understanding of how their Robot and code function. If a Team is unable, for any reason, to provide reasonable evidence (when requested by event staff) that their Robot and code are the result of their own work, it is appropriate to assume that the Team is in violation of and/or
it is appropriate to assume that the Team is in violation of and/or
It is possible that a team was DQed for G2 and/or G4 violations that they did not commit if they are unable to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the RECF rep, EP, and Head Referee they did not commit such violation.
So it is possible for a team to have built a robot with no outside help, but if that team lacks the documentation and/or ability to articulate their design, build, and coding processes to the RECF rep, EP, Judge Advisor, and Head Ref, then they are at risk of a G2/G4 violation.
Not sure if it is already listed inside the judges’ guides, but if it is not, then maybe there is a need to have something more specific regarding exactly how much “articulation” is expected from the teams. Eg. the rationales behind their design decisions? or to the level of explaining the choice of why nylock nuts and not keps nuts, etc? How every single line of code works? or just knowing how each function works?
And end of the day, all of us also need to be realistic as well - factoring in how many trained volunteers can we gather and how much time do we have to do such detailed interviews, etc.
No easy solutions regarding G2 /G4.
No and I share your frustration, but I also think that RECF won’t provide that guidance:
To allow / trust EPs, Judge Advisors, Head Refs the flexibility in determining what that level is
Technically (though I can’t find the documentation right now), a RECF Regional Support Manager (or at least some member of the RECF) is supposed to be involved in adjucating Code of Conduct violations (which G4 and G5 violations become, I believe).
I also think the RECF is not terribly unhappy when it becomes “well known” within the community that there are teams that perform well at Signature Events that are found in violation of G4 or G5. I think they view the uncertainty and the degree of fear as creating a deterrence effect. That said, I’m pretty sure there have been teams at early signature events that are caught violating these rules, that then go onto other signature events and do well and aren’t found to be in violation, so I’m not entirely sure that the actual punishment (to date, and only based on 2nd or farther observation - the harshest punishment I’m aware of is the team being prohibited from competing in elimination round) is actually a deterrent. Is it possible the team found in violation changed their ways and became compliant for subsequent tournaments? Possibly, but also unknowable. And what even is the “right” level of punishment for these violations? I don’t know, and will admit its a lot easier to criticize from afar than to make and enforce the decision, both fairly and consistently.
I completely agree that there are no easy solutions with this.
