Today, the VEX Robotics Game Design Committee, in collaboration with both VEX Robotics and the RECF, released an update to the Game Manual via the official RobotEvents Q&A system to rule G4 regarding the Student Centered Policy in our competitions.
We strongly condemn the circumvention of the Student Centered Policy, and are committed to enforcing these rules, and maintaining a healthy competitive environment.
Please see our statement and the linked QnA for official Rule Text below:
VEX Robotics and the Robotics Education & Competition Foundation (RECF) recognize that the Student-Centered Policy and its associated rules, particularly G4, have not been as effective as intended in upholding the spirit of a student-centered robotics competition.
We have decided to take it upon ourselves to pose this âquestionâ so that we can answer with an immediate update to G4 (and splitting part of G4 into a new G5in the next game manual update). Our hope is to be more direct regarding what is not allowed, and more clear about the consequences for Teams found in violation. We want to strongly emphasize that VEX Robotics and the RECF condemn all practices that undermine the student-centered nature of our competitionsâincluding, but not limited to, the unauthorized dissemination and illegal use of Robot designs from third parties and other Teams.
We also want to reaffirm our commitment to enforcing these standards. Teams found to be in violation will face the strictest consequences.
As part of this initiative, we ask for the communityâs help in upholding this policy by reporting suspected violations. The long-term health of our competition ecosystem depends on maintaining a fair and equitable environment for all Students, and we believe collaboration between event partners, volunteers, coaches, and all participants is critical to that goal. Donât hesitate to contact your Regional Support Manager with any concerns regarding the RECF Student Centered Policy and rule G4.
Please see our answer below for an update to rule G4 that is effective immediately.
I think one of the short-comings of the Student-Centered policy document is that it is framed in a âStudents on a single team with an adult mentorâ.
To the degree to which the RECF acknowledges that students on team A may collaborate or interact with students on team B, is one to simply apply the role of âmentorâ to any cross-team interactions?
In terms of enforcement, are there any guidelines on the process for investigating and evaluating potential violations?
Iâm coming at this from the VEXIQ side, and the creeping increases in size of the Drive Team. Needing two drivers has put a strain on home schooled teams. The recent addition of loaders hasnât helped. I can only assume that future games will require loaders, maybe in 2026 there will need to be two?
From G5
Note: Teams cannot âborrowâ Students from other Teams to serve as Drive Team Members, Coders, Designers, Builders, or notebookers. However, Teams can add permanent members throughout the season under the guidelines of this rule.
Red box: Event Partners should bear in mind , and use common sense when enforcing this rule. It is not the intent to punish a Team who may change Team members over the course of a season due to illness, changing schools, conflicts within a Team, etc.
Event Partners and referees are not expected to keep a roster of any Student who has ever been a Drive Team Member for one day. This rule is intended to block any instance of loaning or sharing Team members for the sole purpose of gaining a competitive advantage.
I get that having âBobbyâ drive / load for multiple teams at an event to give teams an advantage isnât in the spirit. The third paragraph seems to imply that a team can borrow a driver for a day to fill in as a drive team member. I realize that in this era of cut throat competition to jam into Worlds that small teams are at a disadvantage in missing team members. The extremely large competition season coupled with demands of music, sports, testing, etc. again hurts the smaller teams.
Iâm also concerned that this enforcement has become a EP and referee role / problem. RECF demands have meant that events have become more complex. I donât know how this will track with so many teams and places that still allow teams to play across regions and states. Iâm winding down a 20 year experience in school competition robotics so I donât directly EP RECF sanction events, but I am behind the scenes for a lot of them. Is this added workload going to be the thing that tips volunteers into not holding events?
I donât have an easy fix and the new G4/G5 are a process. Iâm happy that I wonât be in the discussion of âis that robot innovative enough from other designs.â
Since its an inevitability, Iâm going to ask before it happens:
What is to be done about teams flooding the system with mass reports to try and hide themselves in it?
Lets say Iâm team âTEAM-1â and I bought a readily known design. In order to hide myself, I report teams 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc in order to overwhelm the system and hopefully cushion myself or buy me time.
Again, I would NEVER do this, and pride myself on innovation, but it seems to be this outcome is an inevitability.
Sounds like a different form of âscorched earthâ strategy.
Actually I am also concern with the other extreme of the spectrum - witching-hunting.
Same as @Foster , I am also winding down on my 20+ years of school robotics, but it will be very sad if the culture evolved into a toxic environment, where everyone operates in the atmosphere of fear.
This extreme end of the spectrum, witch-hunting can be abused in many ways.
Some examples, students not happy with the coaches/mentors for some personal reasons and try to use G2/4 to remove the coaches, another team lodged a G4/5 complaint on another well performing team, hoping to cause distraction and to derail the other teamâs season.
But yet, it is also a fact that we are seeing teams buying the entire design or robot as well.
Or teams that are jealous of other organizations, so Iâm just going to file a report on them and see what happens and give them a bad rap because they always do better than us.
Great overall idea, but there needs to be guardrails in submissions, that there has to be good amount of evidence provided to file otherwise this form will just be spammed. So it feels like only EPâs and RSM should be the oneâs filling out this form for official review. Meaning teams/coaches should fill out a separate form (like at a lower level) to go to their RSM for review or fill out a paper form at an event. Have them sign and put their names and team info on their so they arenât hiding behind a keyboard and they realize the gravity of their accusation they are about to levy. Doing that would be a good way to weed out some of the childish behavior that might, I mean, will happen.
@meng I believe I know who you are talking about. Honestly, like even if their mentors are designing/building the robots for the team, then why cant we (as students) also build great robots.
I think one of the best things about VEX is that it bridges that gap of engineering. You could have a person working at the industry level for over 40 years and still struggle against a good high school team.
My point being, even if there are mentors who are violating the student centred policy, then students should also be able to be just as good.
So like guys (students in this thread) maybe instead of spending time complaining about these violations, spend more time learning about robotics and working on your robot. Use your time wisely.
And for meng, I remember reading a reply of yours stating that you make your teams practice driving so much that they will win no matter what. I believe that we can all learn from this. And honestly, wouldnât you feel even better if you won a match against a mentor built robot?
Oh.. I have no concern at all. My teams are not really that concern too.
I mean⌠we have been playing against mentor-built robot even back when we were still in FLL, WRO.
In fact, we preferred VEX because having a good robot alone does not guarantee a win, there are still many other factors to make up a winning team, eg. gameplay, driving, working well with alliance, etc.
But thatâs also the reason why I am actually more concern with the other extreme of teams abusing this rule to derail other teamsâ legit efforts and performances.
Not to derail this thread by too much - but I canât remember when was the last time my senior teams bothered to listen to my advice when come to designs. But coming from a mentor POV, I am glad as well - coz that means my students have surpassed me and they are (almost) totally independent now.
All these said, quite recently, I have actually highlighted G2/4/5 to the teachers and mentors of different schools in SG. And I am glad to say that the EPs will be taking a stronger stance and be more watchful against all these violations - starting with Spooky Rumble (organised by @TibTy 's school ).
Sorry to nitpick, but there are references to point ii, iii etc (âPoints ii and iii are intended to representâ), but points are not numbered initially. If someone quotes âRule G4, point iiâ, we cannot directly find it.
Iâve been thinking about this and have some general questions:
What happens to âreveal videosâ. Do they appear earlier so teams can get credit for the first and force other teams to make larger changes?
What happens to the âmetaâ as designs get closer to the meta, will people build them? If I look at a prior year, the âLady Brownâ mechanism was super popular. Hundreds of robots had it. Would they all be in a bad situation with G4/G5?
One of the coolest RECF design competitions is the build instructions. Some of them have been amazing and TBH, Iâve built some of them to ferret out some of the key development concepts. Will this award end? Or will it continue with dozens of teams making entries sadly knowing that nobody will build?
What happens to the power builders on Youtube? I follow a lot since Iâm always on the lookout for great ideas. Is this is now a waste since somewhere down the line people can say âOh Caution Tape made that before you?â
How much innovation is âenoughâ. On the Lady Brown, would a different plastic shaped fingers be enough? Would having 6 links between fingers instead of 5 be innovative?
One of the things that I love about VEX was the concept of âstand on the shoulders of giantsâ. I completely get the âno clonesâ, but the new nuance of âstandingâ has me. What is the difference / innovation that will be enforced? Do I get my VIQ teams to build everything with odd length 2x parts since most other teams will build with even length ones?
Iâm going to state a very unpopular opinion. Part of the current issue is because of the closed infrastructure. Robots in VIQ donât have a huge diversion since all the parts are locked down. VRC has a wider spread, but only to cut materials and plastic sheet. The few meta bot designs show this. If you want more diverse robots, need more diverse parts. I donât know when the last new VIQ or VRC part came out.
Iâve also decided that having a single âHero robotâ does a grave disservice. The hero bot gets thousands and thousands of teams building in that one direction. Iâd suggest that there be 3-4 different Hero robots. Hire that guy in China, he does do nice work, hire Ben since he makes simple robots, etc. Iâd love to see the top winning alliance get a crack at designing the next yearâs hero bot.
Now you have 3-4 divergent robots, and those can be an inspiration to others.
I really worried with these 2 points. I noticed that many designs (especially in VIQRC) will converge to sort of the same 3-4 designs. Last year, we indipendantly came up with designs for all 4 eventual âmetasâ of the year. Thankully, we had everything documented well in out EN, but this year (in V5) we donât have such a well documented process, and if someone questions our robot, we canât rely on out notebook as much.
One thing Iâve noticed in the past few years, the hero bots seem to be for teaching students about design principles. For example, Dex, this yearâs hero bot, uses screw joints. This is something that will greatly help any team. Iâm not sure how well most students would be able to design one.
Also, I love the idea of:
If Vex took inspiration from previous yearâs robots, I feel we could have a more diverse eco-system of hero bots. (as long as they are not too competitive. Maybe have something like a flywheel, catapult, and puncher for a shooting game?)
).