While I only have experience in VEX IQ (and so this is mainly towards VIQRC), the following is able to be applied to VEX V5 as well:
Idea: Add a point to the inspection checklist that “Students are able to fully explain all steps of the engineering design process in their robot’s design, build, and program.” In order for this to be checked off, students must explain how they came up with the current design of their robot, as well as implement and test it. Students also need to explain how they created and tested their program(s), including the autonomous code. Inspectors should be able to understand the concepts described by the teams[1], and teams do not pass inspection unless this, along with everything else in the checklist, is verified.
What are your thoughts on this? This removes the stress of having a notebook, integrating G4 into an existing part of IQ and (correct me if I’m wrong) V5. Additionally, notebook is taken out of consideration for Teamwork Champion and Robot Skills, and interviews don’t need to be modified, either.
This is to avoid teams almost confusing inspectors into passing inspection. ↩︎
this will not be practical.
the inspection lines will end up crawling and might end up taking half a day just to get all teams inspected and interviewed.
I am pretty sure most EPs won’t be keen with this idea.
Do you think it would be more beneficial for this to be included in interviews? I wanted to shy away from having it be when the tournament as a whole is already running, as then if teams were DQ’d it would disrupt the entire flow of the tournament. What are your thoughts on this?
@vexiq1358, I really love the reasoning behind this idea, but imo it’s just too impractical.
I think that this actually would benefit a lot of people. Notebook (imo) really could make the competition more honest.
However, there’s the hard truth: some people just don’t notebook. VEX isn’t notebook-based, notebook isn’t the only life skill needed (sadly). Accusing these teams that excel in competition but lack in other areas of being dishonest can be valid, but not for everybody.
Each team really varies, and based on (at least in my region) the volunteers at local events, it’s going to be very difficult and time-consuming to check each and every team and validate their performance.
Like others have said in this topic, leave the rules to be. Could G4 be enforced more strictly? Yes. But will making notebooks impact performance-based awards help? Not in an efficient manner.
The standard for g4 dq is being removed from elimination/finals and judged award, if I’m not mistaken. This is the best way to do it without local tournaments waiting 5 hours to interview everyone before starting
So, if you read G4 - the language is clear and the consequences are written out. It also appear on the inspection sheet that the team and coach have signed.
Teams should be prepared to defend their design at any point during the tournament - from the Game Manual:
It is the responsibility of each Team to be able to explain and defend the design, construc-
tion, 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 deci-
sions, 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 <G2> and/or <G4>.
New at Worlds is Tournament Manager implements an Event DQ, such that teams may be removed during Qualifying Rounds and their spots replaced with teams at end of schedule. This means decisions about CoC do not have to wait until Alliance Selection (for V5) or negatively impact the TeamWork finals list (IQ).
Do note every event listed on RobotEvents has the Code of Conduct Report Tools. I urge teams that have concerns to report to EP, Judge Advisor, and/or Head Referee and to file written report. The earlier in the season the better as it will allow teams to rectify their conduct. Most G4 concerns I have dealt with have been perception - the teams are really good usually because they spend a tons of time doing the stuff they love.
I completely agree and can relate ( I’m in the same situation) but I ended up trying to “outsource the notebook” in mix and match for example a minimum of 3 people are required per team. I got my loader to just keep track of what was happening real time whilst we were building or driving. Then once the robot was complete any changes I would just document briefly and get the loader to expand once they got time.
I see your point where they get the authority to dq teams because of g4 but in practice they don’t as most judges don’t really know / aren’t up to date with online robots. Divisional Head refs usually have more power and awareness as a head ref did come up to my alliance and said he saw a very similar robot but they did confirm they built it with a quick show of the notebook - another good reason to have one even if it’s not detailed. This team wasn’t a cheater team but also weren’t a textbook perfect team
In an ideal world making each team do this (explain their robot) before competeting would almost completely rule out any g4 violators whilst head refs and ep also making sure that the robot is theirs ( can’t remember if it’s a different rule or not)
Robot Skills Champion is not a judged award, it is a deterministic, criteria-based award, awarded to the team that performs the best in skills. To take that away because the team didn’t have a “good enough” notebook takes away one of the 2 competition performance based qualification criteria (the other being how you perform in eliminations). There are already many judged awards, such as Excellence, Design, Innovate, Amaze, Think, Build, etc, and all of those require a notebook.
I understand why you would think that the engineering notebook should somewhat influence these awards, but teamwork champ and skills champ by definition only depend on the score of a match. It was designed to be irrelevant from the notebook. However I think that there should be other awards designed like this, maybe a sub-excellence
If you think about it, VEX created so many different awards to award different types of teams! Don’t discount one team simply because they excel at building or driving, instead appreciate how different teams can be good at different things
This is coming from someone who is the primary notebooker and programmer of a team
