Robot Arm rules question

[StrugglingSophomore]

Hi all, my team is in a bit of a conundrum. We have three teams for competition, but we are only going to have 2 robot arms ready to go by the time that the competition rolls around(Saturday). I was wondering if it was against the rules to use one robot for the two teams. After one team finishes the other team would add things to the base to stabilize it, and add a different gear ratio. It would still be the "same" robot, but it would have a couple of modifications. Your thoughts on this?

[windu34]

Hi all, my team is in a bit of a conundrum. We have three teams for competition, but we are only going to have 2 robot arms ready to go by the time that the competition rolls around(Saturday). I was wondering if it was against the rules to use one robot for the two teams. After one team finishes the other team would add things to the base to stabilize it, and add a different gear ratio. It would still be the "same" robot, but it would have a couple of modifications. Your thoughts on this?

I think this is unethical, but that is just my own opinion. I do not know how the official scioly organization feels about it I've seen teams do this at Florida regionals/states and get away with it (no dq).

[retired1]

My opinion. The rules say that teams must provide one device. That pretty much means to me that Sharing a device is not the intent of the rule.
It is a self schedule event-no impound, so few people would know that team 3 took team 1's device and very privately modified it. I would expect competing teams to file a complaint if they suspected it, so it would need to be well camouflaged.

[Bazinga+]

Hi all, my team is in a bit of a conundrum. We have three teams for competition, but we are only going to have 2 robot arms ready to go by the time that the competition rolls around(Saturday). I was wondering if it was against the rules to use one robot for the two teams. After one team finishes the other team would add things to the base to stabilize it, and add a different gear ratio. It would still be the "same" robot, but it would have a couple of modifications. Your thoughts on this?

Honestly just go for it. Worst case scenario you will be caught and dqed in just that event, whereas if you didn't bring any robot then you would automatically receive last. As long as neither team really worked on a robot way more than another I think its ethical. But if you expect this robot to do well i would be cautious since other teams will be more skeptical of good robots, and might somehow get both teams' robots dqed.

[bernard]

Hi all, my team is in a bit of a conundrum. We have three teams for competition, but we are only going to have 2 robot arms ready to go by the time that the competition rolls around(Saturday). I was wondering if it was against the rules to use one robot for the two teams. After one team finishes the other team would add things to the base to stabilize it, and add a different gear ratio. It would still be the "same" robot, but it would have a couple of modifications. Your thoughts on this?

Honestly just go for it. Worst case scenario you will be caught and dqed in just that event, whereas if you didn't bring any robot then you would automatically receive last. As long as neither team really worked on a robot way more than another I think its ethical. But if you expect this robot to do well i would be cautious since other teams will be more skeptical of good robots, and might somehow get both teams' robots dqed.

Will point out that the second sentence is more concerned with possible consequences rather than the ethics of the question. An action can have minimal consequences but still be unethical.

[jander14indoor]

Opinion only as usual...

Others have already pointed out that it at least violates the intent, and probably the words of the rule. IF all 6 students have contributed to the robot, MAYBE not.

Is this an invitational or official (leads to the next level) tournament?

Since you are talking about three teams I suspect it is an invitational, talk to the organizers. Since these tournaments are for practice and medals, they might let the third team compete, but not earn medals. You students still get competition practice, but maintain their ethics.

If it is a tournament to advance, maintain ethics, have the third team sit it out.

Whatever you do, don't teach the students its OK to go the 'hide it' route.

Jeff Anderson
Livonia, MI

[hscmom]

Jeff's right... Do the right thing. SO rules state that the device needs to be made by someone(s) on the 15-person team. Not a parent, coach, or someone on another team in the same school.

[GoldenKnight1]

At a recent invitational a school with two teams brought 1 device and asked the supervisor if they could both run it with the first team being scored and the second team still being a "No Show" but getting the experience of running a device in front of judges. I had no problem with this method as the team was not trying to be sneaky, the team did not get an unfair advantage in scoring, and it was only done with the supervisor's approval and willingness to give his time. I can think of few event supervisors that if asked the same question and had the time available that would not let the students try.

[StrugglingSophomore]

Thanks for all of the responses guys. One of the robots was almost entirely built by one member, the other robot was built by at least 8 other people and each person has put in a similar amount of time. I like the idea of getting the competition experience without actually competing for a score. Yes, it will be an invitational, and we will be hosting it, so it would be unethical to use that one robot to compete for two teams.

[StrugglingSophomore]

Jeff's right... Do the right thing. SO rules state that the device needs to be made by someone(s) on the 15-person team. Not a parent, coach, or someone on another team in the same school.

The teams were not determined until last week and were based off of results at Yale invitational, so while we were building we had no idea what team we were going to be on.