Our python program for this push back season is almost 600 lines of code. Most of the program is dedicated to the auton selector and rotating logos when idle (about 300-350 lines). Would people want this code?
Should I create this custom auton template in multiple coding languages?
I would remind teams that R2 and G4 apply to using other team’s code without understanding how it works.
It’s a template and usually a ton of templates explain how it works. If you explain enough to where the other teams understand how it works and understand how the variables change it shouldn’t be a problem. I have used an auton selection template before and it is very confusing. Thats why i want to create a simpler one to understand and give them the base code so that they can customize it however they want. If they want to do a single or multiple menus they can. If they want to have it display on the controller or next to the button on the brain they can. I want to give them something that they can use to build upon rather than making it for them. That’s why i started this poll.
This would be a godsend. Please.
I would remind G2, G4, and R2 apply to all competition teams - please read carefully the Q&A about getting code they did not create themselves.
Ditto for robot designs, custom parts, etc.
Have you used a custom code template before? Most templates aren’t copy paste, you actually need to know how it works! Templates nowadays are mostly about logic and if you want to know how they work you have to understand the logic. If you can’t understand logic then you won’t be able to use the template. And if people still want to use the template over time they will learn (wow crazy!) how it works and actually utilize it correctly- almost like they made it themselves. I think fearmongering people about code templates is a huge blow to collaboration and creating new ideas across the community. The whole point of vex is for people to create new solutions and ideas, NOT to gatekeep them. You can explain what might be a violation (because yes some templates can be clear violations), but telling people “hey this might be a violation” isn’t going to be helpful. Feel free to disagree but that is my take.
uh, sure - create new solutions for your team, not create solutions for every team out there not ready to develop their own solutions.
So let me give a concrete example - James Pearman and myself posted “templates” for autonomous selector templates before Student-Centered and G4/R2 were fully developed - you may note that less competition ready examples are being published for that reason. I was thinking if I had to redo the example code, I would instead use an example in a very different domain that with thinking teams could figure out how to implement for competitions - for example, a pizza ordering system for a pizza restaurant. You can start with select from 8 pizza choices using the V5 brain, to have 8 menus of 8 choices, or have 8 menus with 256 options. In the process teams can learn about scaling from V5 with 8 program slots, to each slot program having 8 options (James Pearman example), to each slot program having 256 options (walshbot example), to a graphical UI that can show default options (like VEXcode VR game playground), or creating a UI on the brain to draw out all options … While I did not do this summer, this method is not a direct pathway to templating competition solutions for teams, but rather focused on helping teams learning about advance coding techniques.
This is a great example but you can’t teach everyone. You can’t put millions of students at a learning disadvantage because you can get your students to make a template. Not everyone has a teacher like you, heck you might be 1 of about 100 teachers who can do this for their students. That’s why I drove home the point of student collaboration. Again I really hate how you didn’t give people an exact definition of what rule you think they are breaking and the exact circumstances led to the violation. I say this because what is a violation should be directly stated and what I’m about to say could be violation based on your words- but how the heck I am supposed to know? My point is that students can help each other learn and explore what they need to make a what is in a template and then eventually they can make it on their own. Teams should not be stuck in purgatory because their teachers don’t have the ability to help them. Every team should have an opportunity to learn things that make them better regardless of the situation they are in. I has a team at my school last year that was full of the brightest girls but they were beginners who weren’t given information on how to get better. They eventually all quit because (surprise) their mentor didn’t help them learn anything. Online resources are available to almost everybody and most of them are made by and for students to help students. If you believe the students should be making everything then have everyone make vex code from scratch and build their own motors.
Literally the original poster offered there code to solve competition code. When posted, it was an iffy G4/R2 issue - with recent Q&A, pretty clear teams should NOT use it.
I do not need to be a great teacher, but I do know what the Game Manual states, and the clarification is amplifying that teams absolutely need to learn it with out solutions given to them for sale, by other teams, by adults, or by AI.
I provided an example how to teach concepts without giving competition ready solutions (templates, cad, or pre-built solutions.), recognizing this is probably the most effective way to learn.
Students giving copy and paste, or fill in the blanks pathways is not student collaboration.
Sorry, I did not specifically point to rules/definition, as today the Q&A made it super clear. Here is Q&A - not my words/concerns, but GDC’s:
Here is a super precise quote to support my concerns:
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 functions.
If a Team is unable, for any reason, to provide reasonable evidence that their Robot is the result of their own work, it is appropriate to assume that the Team is in violation of G2 and/or G4.
While using a templates may seem to make ok because you changed a variable here or there, it does not explain how the template was developed without the outside support of another team to show you how to structure your program for competition.
So what happens when you use other organization/team’s work - it is clear in the Q&A:
Consequences may include disqualification from matches, removal from events, and/or escalation of the investigation to VEX Robotics and the RECF for further disciplinary action, which may include sanctions up to and including removal from the program.
@clanker let’s be clear on this - when I post a concern and advice to teams on this forum, it is because I want all teams to have good learning opportunities and level playing field at competitions. Don’t take shortcuts, absolutely share ideas but not direct copies of code/designs/strategies that may run afoul of G1/G2/G4/G5/R2… you know the Game Manual.
Look forward to your first cake day next year!
It looks like you answered my question but don’t understand what I am saying???
“ Not everyone has a teacher like you, heck you might be 1 of about 100 teachers who can do this for their students.” Pretty clearly saying you are quite good at what you do. However, my point is you can’t be everywhere. Again, I loved how you taught your students but I’m sure they could teach other kids the same lesson from across the globe and that’s the magic of robotics. If you had never showed them they never would have known and the learning would have never been spread.
Again I agree. Was just confused why a comment like “check the rules” was left on something you, who knows a lot about the manual, feels strongly was a violation. People ABSOLUTELY need to read the manual and threads relating too it, but if you are going to say something about the manual it can’t be a half statement. These are high school/middle school kids who have lives to live and do this as a hobby. Most times if people are iffy about a rule they will go for risk instead of playing it safe and fair. Someone like you who knows the rules can help stop that. Also, you mentioned for “sale”. I assume this means being given out or handed, not explicitly sold? I’m aware that code and robots are sold and that it’s a huge complex issue with no clear solution in sight, but those are obvious violations.
How do you know what variable to change? How do you know how to change it? How do you know how it will affect the code? I ask you again- how should we share ideas? If someone develops some groundbreaking code that works every time do they just say “Code works every time.” and move on? No. With things like Odom and recently MCL, people made videos explaining why those things work, leaving people to implement them on their own with their own processes and solutions. Again, knowledge and innovation can’t be spread with a statement. And if we choose to hide that knowledge away then what is even the point of having a robotics community other than for personal gain?
This is hilarious. I think they are on your side with this one. My side as well unless you want to give everyone in this thread a class about auton selectors.
Me too! Hopefully I have some more conversations with you and other mentors, I find them really insightful since most of my mentors simply don’t care enough to have a conversation with a student.
Here is a similar point that goes with this thread. I would love to hear everyone’s feedback on the point in question:
It has been brought to light that Q&A 2812 has sparked considerable discussion within the VEX community. Initially, this reminder ruling seemed positive, as it encourages teams to genuinely engage in the engineering design process rather than simply copying top-performing designs. However, it appears that at some local events in our region, individuals are invoking potential G4 violations and asking Head Referees to investigate other teams’ robots and documentation purely based on the assumption that a team’s design looks similar to that of a high-ranking team. In many of these cases, a brief examination shows that the robots are clearly built differently, sharing only a general concept.
With every VEX challenge, there are only so many viable design approaches that teams can pursue. Calling out teams for G4 violations solely because their robot resembles another successful design can seems both unfair and excessive.
The reason I’m bringing this up is that one of my students mentioned ongoing discussions in the community about the G4 ruling, and we’ve observed teams in our region attempting to use the rulebook to have others disqualified. This student asked if I would post this question: At what point does a G4 violation concern turn into a G1 violation for the team making the accusation?
To rephrase: what prevents teams from repeatedly requesting that Head Referees investigate others for G4 violations without any credible evidence that those teams are not representing their own skill level? We completely understand that if there is some evidence of a violation, an inspection is warranted. However, requesting investigations merely because a team is performing well with a similar design seems contrary to the intent of G1, which states:
“All Teams are expected to conduct themselves in a respectful and professional manner while competing in VEX Robotics Competition events.”
Such behavior doesn’t appear respectful or professional. So, at what point would teams making these accusations be considered in violation of G1?
Nothing.
But do note certified Head Referees, Judge Advisors, and EPs are acutely aware of gaming by teams in unsportsmanlike manner is a G1 violation. In our region, we have seen this in the past, and communicate clearly about this point before eliminations start (you know, when it “gets real”).
I do think teams are learning all season these rules - they are complex, but learning opportunities in which they will get it wrong - so not always G1, but rather unskilled and teachable moment.
I think “Nothing” is an understatement. The submission form, at least the one I saw for V5RC, indicates that (paraphrasing) submitting spurious claims is itself a Code of Conduct violation.