I do think it would be interesting to see how the students can prove the ability to make a lemlib facsimile without actually doing so. I feel the only way to prove it is to demonstrate it, but at that point its just banning lemlib or other templates.
I think this is true. Itâs also very time consuming to test if the team actually knows the library properly. However, I think instead of teams sharing libraries with each other they will share resources to learn whatâs in popular libraries.
I also think there is a problem with making a âcustom libraryâ that doesnât show a reflection of team skill. A team can know how a library works, but do they have the knowledge to make their own template for it?
However my biggest problem is how this wonât address the buy a bot issue. Having rules for teams reflecting skill level is fine, but these are so subjective that it harms a lot of teams that shouldnât be harmed. The reason I said this doesnât hurt clone bot teams is that they already have built structure for this. Itâs a common excuse among these teams that âtheir teammate isnât hereâ when asked adult help ( Iâve even seen it myself). Now they can just say their âprogrammer isnât hereâ and have an excuse when judges ask how their prog works. These things were not addressed in the new rules so thereâs no merit to stop them, this still protecting the clone/bought bots. Iâm eager to see how the new Q&A plays out, especially at sigs, but iâm not hopeful for its outlook at the moment.
I agree, but that is where the SCP draws the line.
Question is: how to best confirm those using libraries are allowed to do so. You can obviously ask students to affirm their coding level meets the standard, but that does not guarantee compliance. Coding tests as a component of inspection are not realistic.
Is it time to upgrade the features of codeV5 and raise the floor for all teams?
Iâve been following this thread for a bit because it is a very interesting topic.
This is absolutely incorrect. Letâs read the rule and see what it says.
"Teams must avoid academic dishonesty and should not copy a Robot or mechanism that has been provided for them. "
Basic fasteners are not a problem. Even something as specific as a flex wheel intake is not the problem. The problem is seeing a picture of 15+ robots lined up that look the same hole for hole.
The problem is that the current ruling is too vague and it subjected to a wide range of interpretations.
Donât get me wrong - I do agree with your interpretations. End of the day, it is about common sense.
But yet, hereâs from a separate thread:
@60_Percent_C_Channel - sorry for quoting you over here. But it does highlight the issue about different interpretation of the rules.
@Micahy321 - for this case, personally Iâd would have âpassedâ this goal clamp.
Reasons - there were really very limited ways in having an effective goal clamp and the team had replaced it with different parts.
But to some, it might not be good enough.
So thatâs the reason why Foster and I have been asking - how much difference is enough (to be considered as not hole-counting)?
Hole counting: In what Iâve seen, hole counting (other wise called copying) is being often accused when somebody has a very similar design to the other team.
Itâs usually a matter of if the initial concept is aboutt the same and if it has a decent amount of similarities. It doesnât really matter much if the team DID or DID NOT copy/holecount/ any other synonym you want to use for this subject. If a team/ individual/ group of people see something that their brain has linked to a certain team; then they call it holecounting/ copying/etc.
Or they just say âOh- you inspired your robot off of ____ robot?â
No real way of defining what is considered hole counting unless you were in the accused team and actually know the story behind it. But I do guess that most people consider robots that have really similar designs to be hole counted (when I say similar, I mean that the robots have 75% or more of the mechanisms/ components/ etc to be the same.)
Thatâs just what I think though.
âthey will share resources to learn whatâs in popular librariesâ
Actually I think that is the ideal direction to take right now. Nothing wrong with teaching people or learning from others, isnât that the beauty of engineering? We just canât count being given a template and barely understanding it as fair play for using it (which is not the case for all teams).
So am I right to interpret what you are saying is that we will all need different ways of doing a 6-bar or DR4B? In fact, different ways might not be enough - coz it will still be the same concept (of using a 6-bar).
Because going by this train of thoughts, then it is like what Foster has mentioned - it is a race of being the 1st to do a reveal?
I do think this is a bad metric to use - coz all of us are limited by the exposure that we have. eg. Person A saw this design in June in Country X, but not aware of the developments in other countries, maybe the design was already there in Country Y in May. But the team from Country Y got accused of copying by Person A (coz to this person, he is limited by his exposure and thought this design was from a team in Country X).
That would have made sense, if you hadnât known it was built from instructions. The problem with this was not that it was very similar, but that he had built it with the intent to exactly copy it. My problem with this is that he did none of the innovation, which a team will have to do if they are building/coding legally.
As the author of the reply you quoted, I was using the rhetorical device hyperbole within a rhetorical question to give the effect of an exaggeration. Of course you donât need to find a new way to use a screw. I was just trying to make the point of how subjective this rule change is.
Cant believe im AP Langing the forums 
At what point does a robot build become allowed to be copied?
For example 2025 Online Challenges Winners Announced - RECF has a number of great build tutorials. When do they become fair game to copy? RECF has clearly endorsed them, published them and in some cases awarded them. Can teams use them?
This H-drive tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHyZfsdbXrQ by Michaela of Colon Parenthesis : ) puts on a master class on the H-Drive and how to build one. Is this drive eligible for copy?
There is an entire ecosystem out there that supports LEGO designs. Dozens of books on mechanicals. (I love them, they are an awesome resource). Thousands of videos. The VEX ecosystem has maybe a hundred of decent ones, whatâs the line between using them to create a robot?
My roboteers and I will have a discussion on which pin is better: a 1x1 vs 0x2? Iâll bet they will say 0x2 since joints with them are super hard to take apart. If they construct a clonebot, BUT use 0x2 pins, is that enough of a âimprovementâ to make it different?
And Iâll ask again since I donât seem to be able to find an answer, âwho decidesâ. An EP that only does events and doesnât spend thousands of hours looking at videos of other robots? A volunteer that is participating in their very first event?
Is RECF about to jump over a very dark line and say âshow us a video of the other robot?â Is that the slope that becomes âyou allow videos for disqualification before matches, why not allow them for matchesâ.
Cycling back to the software library comments. There are lines between:
- Team knows how to use a library
- Team knows how to use a PID function
- Team know how PID functions work (and in their arcane forms of P only, PD, etc.)
- Team knows how to package up a PID function into a reusable library.
Where does the line get drawn?
The VEX library written by James and others, and the Perdue library written by a dozens students contains very complex code. Are there lines around this code that roboteers are blocked from using until they understand it?
Since I live in the VIQ world ( since Iâm winding down, Iâve not doing VRC) letâs take the very simple and very popular drive component. You give it the drive parameters
- wheel size
- track width
- wheel base
- gear ratio
- gyro yes / no
- motor connections (2 / 4 motors)
And you are good to go. It now âknows howâ to drive distances, make exact angle turns, etc. Thousands of roboteers use this and donât have a clue on how the inside works. There is large amount of âcode magicâ happening inside, do roboteers need to understand all of this?
As my general disclaimer. This is a hard problem to solve, these are first steps. How the steps are done and possible bad outcomes are a worry.
In the EP resources, process for G1,G2,G4 are pretty clear at event:
https://kb.roboticseducation.org/hc/en-us/articles/14490397054359-Code-of-Conduct-Reporting-Process
It is the EP, JA, HR, and RECF RSM that make the determination of issuing an Event DQ.
The ruling is still so so so so subjective as @Foster said. Students and EPâs donât currently know what are violations if we are being honest. An EP knows the definition of a violation of course than how do we expect them to prove that a team can make their own library. If a team is using lemlib do they just say âI made my own libraryâ and show some code the EP has to know how lemlib works. And if an EP asks to prove that a team can do odom itâs gonna take at least a few hours for both. There has to be a more efficient and understandable way to approach this rule.
These rules are also biased because you canât check every team due to time. Only the successful teams will be checked, and successful teams actually know what they are doing. The teams who donât have good knowledge of code but are doing better than they are supposed to arenât suspicious enough because they canât reach the levels of people who know what they are doing.
I also think this is a good point. When the team got dqed at great planes, it was a report that was submitted and reviewed right as alliance selection was about to start. The delay and dq was a huge disruption to the event due to the complete lack of respect for time.
We are taking some very important steps to make teams accountable and actually learn what they are doing, but âbuy-a-botsâ arenât being affected. The only thing thatâs happened is confusion and disruptions right now, which is very unfortunate.
In time I think these rules will be very helpful to the vex community. But there has to be some changes and clarification so that they donât end in disaster. This thread is proof that a huge amount of students, mentors, and EPs are confused about what in the world they are supposed to do from here.
Does anyone know if this new ruling applys to event Partners, For example If an event partner was clearly being biased towards there own team and breaking the rules Would it be approprate to report them under this new ruling. For those who are wondering about the nature of my question its due to past experiences but Im just curious how that would be done considering the G4
Code of Conduct and Student Centered apply to all participants of VEX Robotics Competitions. If the EP has a team, they are not participating in the decision process - hence, more than one key volunteer and RECF RSM as part of the on-site investigation. Reports can be made after the event as well - it is all described in the document I shared. This process has been in place for a while.
Not everything needs to be new and made. Itâs just when there are too many similarities that end up making the robots look almost identical.
I was just talking about what Iâve seen, not referring to what is the correct thing to do.
Like I tried to end it at: there is no perfect way of determining if or not if somebody did infact copy/ holecount. Nor is there really a good way. Cause (most) people arenât gonna really say that they holecounted if they did.
Oh well.
There is definitely a lot of uncertainty, and some of that may be intentional to:
- Give the RECF latitude in judging violations
- Creating incentives for teams to document their process to avoid the problem
- Instill some fear in teams from coming too close to the âlineâ
Given that RECF (at least thru the RSM) is involved in the process, I think we are left largely to:
- Trust their judgement
- Teams should ideally not come close to the line, and, when in question, document their process
Based on the rumors of the violations at Highlander that were probably the most recent (but not exclusive) straw on this camelâs back, I went back and reviewed livestream footage of the teams that were likely involved. Based on my observation just of the robots from relatively poor quality video, I think there was clearly grounds at least for an evaluation of whether âcopying in violation of the spirit of teams doing their own workâ. I know Iâm probably toeing the line of guidelines for the forum by even stating that, so I wonât go any further.
I think that what we all want to see are teams that âbuy a robot off the internetâ get punished (rightly) and avoid situations where teams in the Dome all have suspiciously identical robots. I think we also want to see teams that independently arrive at similar (or identical) solutions not be punished. I donât know that human language can specify the differences/distinctions between these two cases other than âIâll know it when I see itâ.
Does this lead to RECF possibly making mistakes? Yes. Is this a transparent process? Probably not entirely, though it would seem that teams can at least defend themselves via the Engineering Notebook (which is probably one of the closest-to-industry mechanisms available).
At this stage, do I think the RECF has made false-positives in situations of application of this policy that I am aware of? No, and therefore probably deserve the benefit of the doubt at this point. It is in RECFâs interests for these competitions to have integrity.
@bkahl - Apologies for repling to my own post, but I do want to add something:
I just want to re-iterate my view related to Shuhari ( What Can Be Done About Blatant G2/R2 violations? - #33 by Mentor_355U ) in the context of Vex.
I do strongly believe that some level of âcopyingâ is a necessary step in the development of skill mastery. I hope that the RECF agrees broadly with this even if we may draw the lines in different places.
I disagree with some of the wording in the Q&A response, in particular âIt should be clear that this final implementation is not an exact copy of ANY other original design.â, but I cannot come up with a clear and concise alternative phrasing, to allow what I believe (and I think others would agree) there could be legitimate reasons for the final implementation to be an exact copy of some other design.
But this comes back to trusting the RECFâs judgement in applying this rule appropriately. I know many may be suspicious of the RECFâs ability to do this impartially, but I think that we need to assume they will probably apply this only in clear-cut cases, in the interests of maintaining the competitionâs overall integrity (e.g. both from a false-positive and a false-negative perspective)
This is where documentation in the EN would come into play. If a team can document the steps that led them to a final implementation, whether or not it matches another design exactly is moot. In theory, they could have faked their design process by coming up with multiple alternatives, objectively selecting some, prototyping, etc⌠but it seems to me more likely that if there is meaningful process in the EN, they own the final implementation.