I really like the approach that @meng described for new teams. Collaborating to develop basic strategy and design of their first robot (basically a prototype) sounds even more productive than having teams build the herobot… as long as they diverge from it and eventually arrive at more unique robots with significant differences. New roboteers are often too intimidated or lack the skill to plan out a functional first robot… hence the need for a herobot. I imagine that they probably get more out of the process he described. I also think that people probably misinterpreted his earlier post (as I initially did) as meaning that this process carried through the entire season.
On the other hand, non-rookie teams really shouldn’t design and build together. There can be some basic discussion (general strategy, pros & cons, etc) and minor assistance (teaching a concept or technique, explaining how a mechanism works). Overall, though, teams should strive to be independent so that they can develop the skills that V5RC promotes. Anything else diminishes each member’s experience. But most people get caught up in the fact that this is a competition and lose sight of the actual goal of the V5RC.
Long journey to get here - so what did you do to report these situations and did you provide good documentation?
If we are seeing this in the dome did anyone report it earlier? If so, what was the response? (the official documented process is no feedback to reporters of outcomes).
I believe the system needs improvement. What should they be?
The messages on discord were 2 people from teams that allianced and made dome. One of them was listing cobuilt teams in dome, and listed themself and their alliance. Their alliance confirmed this.
Both of the teams had graduated, and this occurred three months after worlds. They were also both the only team in their org, so there wouldn’t really be anything the recf could do.
This was only mentioned once, offhandedly (see my point about disregard for the SCP), and the screenshots are impossible to be shared on the forum due to the amount that would need to be blocked out.
I do not know, but it was not easy to tell if the robots were very similar or not from the dome cameras.
I think that more transparency with the community would help. I know that it isn’t good to do that to teams, but I feel that if it was confirmed that the reason the two teams were removed from MoA elims was because of a G2 violation, teams would be less likely to cobuild/mentorbuild if they knew the recf was cracking down on SCP violations. The same goes for AI in notebooks, which was discussed in the other thread. If the recf told people why a team was disqualified from judged awards, teams would be less likely to risk losing award possibilities.
I will say that I do not think this idea would work perfectly, if at all. This is less of an idea for what the recf should do, and what should be their last resort. I understand that there are reasons why the recf isn’t outing SCP violating teams, and I think those are good reasons. While this could work, there are obviously many issues with privacy and ethicality with this approach.
In addition, in-person you can speak with EP or email them.
For non-event specific issue you are not sure - reach out to your RECF Regional Support Manager, they are there to help guide you.
VEXforum and other social media platform are not ideal places. So I do hope teams do work through the official channels that will document behaviors and follow up with teams and organizations in a deliberate manner. Due note, once reports go in, the reporters will not hear back about resolution. I do think RECF needs to be more transparent, and also understand that sometimes mediated restorative conversations between the reporting entity and the alleged SCP/CoC violators would be helpful.
Due note, RECF staff does not post on VEXforum and social media to assure quality of their communications by their organization on delicate matters. Some do read the forum, but do not assume it is a reporting mechanism.
I didn’t mean that the forum was where I would report it, but it was an explanation of why I didn’t include the screenshot anywhere in the post, since I already stated why I didn’t officially report it. I should have probably explained that in the recent post, my bad.
If it would be legal under G4 for a team to collaborate with another team on a robot design as long as they don’t use that robot in a competition (I’m not sure whether it’s legal myself but I’m hoping it would be), and if scrimmages are not required to prohibit these robots even if official qualifying events do, then I assume what your teams are doing would be legal, regardless of whether G4 allows it for qualifying events. (And I think I agree with you that if it is not legal for new teams for other events, it would ideally become legal.)
I think part of the reason why no one reported them is also like people don’t want them to get in trouble (if yk what I mean) and the reporters may not want to look bad themselves.
I have heard this a fair amount - however, if you want something to be done about this situation it will take the will of the community to stand up and speak up and say this is not right.
One misconception people have is that there is a hammer that drops down on first reports, quite the contrary, all efforts are put to educate and rectify the situation. Sometimes, it is a matter of a new team/organization not knowing the policies. Hopefully, correct actions can made early in the season rather than wait until Worlds.
This has nothing to do with the two teams you were talking about (they are definitely not the same robot for multiple reasons, and the things you listed above are not purely cosmetic), but I would like to say that cosmetic differences, at least in my opinion, do not make a holecounted robot any less holecounted. For instance, one of my team members last year took a picture of another team’s mobile goal clamp, and copied it with the intention of using it on the robot. While I was able to convince him (but never my coach or RSM, see my point about ignorance to the SCP) that he was breaking G4, his argument was that it was different because instead of using screws with spacers for one part, he used standoffs. The only reason he did this is because we didn’t have the correct spacer size. I believe this still broke G4 because it would have functioned exactly the same, and he did none of the work in developing it. Am I incorrect?
I have mixed thoughts regarding this scenario that you mentioned.
While it is a good ideal that we should move all teams/students to, I am not sure if this bar is set too high.
Playing the devil advocate here, 2 immediate thoughts came into my mind:
If this the level or details that we are going into, I am really not sure how can the EPs enforced it.
It is almost equivalent to teams using 1x3x1x35 c-channels to build a DR4B instead of 1x2x1x35 that they saw in another robot.
Sometimes, there are really only that few approaches in doing something. eg. there are only that few ways of doing a claw, or even an odometry pod, etc.
But yet at the same time, I do agree that just because it is difficult to enforce, it doesn’t mean we need to condone it.
Hence, my mixed feelings over it.
You were correct to stop a teammate from using another team’s design by taking a photo and making trivial change of one material that had no impact on the successful design of the other team.
Your teammate wants the success without the work. That team put effort in coming up with the design - they figured out the size, materials and configuration to make it work.
I remind teams that G4 goes down reusing past subsystems from another team from previous season.
Here are three Q&A about skill level violations:
Note NONE of these example violations are whole hole for hole copies of robots - just not putting the effort to come up with your own design and robot representing your skill level - including use of tools (fabrication and coding).
@60_Percent_C_Channel you have brought to light a whole slew of issues in V5RC that if addressed by all teams will level the playing field fairly under the Game Manual rules.
Bruh…Talk about going down a rabbit hole. This was not just some light reading…I am here for this kind of discussion. We have all seen the robots and asked ourselves these questions. What do I do? Does anyone care? Who do I say something too? I am here to tell you SPEAK UP. We as a community cannot be silent anymore. Stand Up…You put in hours of work (time, sweat and tears) don’t just be silent. Talk to your Head referee, Talk to a REC representative, We will listen. We will do our best to help. but it starts with… If You See Something Say Something…
I am surprised that, in VEX, straight up copying CAD files from another team, making it, and taking credit is not considered academic dishonesty. This absolutely should count as plaigarism especially since it is an educational system and many schools offer classes that use VEX as it’s method of teaching.
If this were outside of VEX and I did not make an effort to provide credit to original authors, I may have my research certification revoked. Like it’s insane that the punishment is so small for these type of behaviors, almost as if it is being endorsed at this point due to the lack of enforcement and fear of retaliation on-site.
VEX should make the clonebots not just illegal, but they should enforce more strict punishments for it. At some point VEX should be more serious about tackling academic dishonesty such as plaigarism in their own academic apparatus if they wish to advertise themselves as an apparatus of academia in the first place.
Why I believe this matters
Integrity of Competition: Clonebots reduce innovation and creativity, turning competition into replication contests rather than engineering challenges.
Academic Alignment: Schools using VEX to teach STEM must reconcile their own academic honesty policies with the lax enforcement in competition. This disconnect devalues both the learning process and VEX’s academic credibility.
Fairness in Opportunity: Plagiarism allows teams or organizations to monopolize scholarships and sponsorships by reaping the benefits of others’ intellectual labor.
What are the options?
VEX should allow teams to collaborate and use other team’s designs so long as there is credit. Essentially a pivot from the “team isolationalism” rules, and let teams be comfortable with working together and networking with each other.
VEX should prioritize the community’s interest by setting an example of bad acting organizations that plaigarize. If an org actively encourages plaigarism between teams, that should be immediate suspension for 4-6 months for the organization itself, period. And that’s quite a slap on the wrist for something that could have been career destroying in the optics of it.
Nothing happens and everyone accepts the plaigarism as a way of competing in VEX. Everyone accepts that cookie cutter designs is a standard that diminishes the quality and fun of competition, and everyone else should cater to the few that monopolize scholarship opportunities and sponsorships though plaigarism and academic dishonesty as a result of blind eyes turned away.
But for me, here’s the best part. I can sit back and watch this unfold without worry about being in the brunt of it. It’s in my rear view mirrors. I missed the times when VEX was on ESPN and CBS. But those times are over, even for those still competing in VEX. That’s not my problem.
Just a reminder that VEX makes the spiffy parts, RECF runs the competitions.
And a side note that RECF is a non-profit, they are not in the position to mount a defense from a wealthy parent or robotics org if/when they bounce the roboteers from a competition. So they are doing things, but very cautiously.
There were a lot of companies that wanted provide philanthropic support for the competitions. So, in 2011, three employees of VEX Robotics education division launched the REC Foundation.
Roughly 90% of RECF’s discussion was about involvement with VEX, while only allocating 1-2 sentences for the Robotics Aerial Drone (RAD) competition Other than that, It’s all about VEX. It is further reinforced by looking at RECF’s Library from their own website:
I do not want to look too much into the conversational forensics as I am not an expert, but if VEX Robotics did not exist, RECF would have not existed either. And if VEX Robotics goes downhill, RECF will go downhill with it especially with the limited manpower it has. However, the opposite will not be true. If the RECF went out of business, VEX Robotics will continue to exist but likely be in desperation to remake a new RECF-esque type of company to fill in the void that RECF filled. Essentially, even though RECF is its own organization, the power dynamic makes it more of a department of VEX Robotics under a different and separate name for simplicity and reduction of red tape of RECF Department → VEX Robotics → IFI leadership that causes a headache. Simply making RECF its own company is a strategic decision while still endorsing close ties with VEX, even though I know VEX pays RECF and RECF pays VEX for appearances and business formalities. The power dynamic asserts that RECF is more treated as a department of VEX. So that is why I say “VEX” as a blanket term.
