Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

M05 - Extraction

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • M05 - Extraction

    Mission Discussion Thread

  • #2
    There has been a question about scoring on this mission. One of the early score-apps designed their input so that the secondary M05 objectives were only "enabled" once the primary task of getting "all four" samples was complete.


    I stated I thought it was possible to score the Gas and/or Water sample objectives independently of getting "all four" samples off the Core Site Model.

    They replied that a) the "Simply Speaking" text does state to get them all off and then have optional additional tasks. and b) that in the Possible Scores, there were not choices for 8, 10, or 12.


    First thought is that only the "Technically Speaking" text is final/binding. But then the lack of Possible Scores (which falls under the Technical section), does seem to re-enforce that the 16pt objective must be complete before Gas and/or Water would be scored for additional placements.


    But there is not text (I that I see) that makes the bulleted objectives have a hierarchical relationship. Each bullet should be independent unless explicitly tied to another. Agree?

    If so, is a clarification needed? What has the scoresheet and scoring software developers thought about it?
    Our INTO ORBIT Scoring Tool is out. This year, it is hosted on our new site FLLTutorials.com. http://flltutorials.com/Resources/2018/scorer/index.html We get a max score of 400pts. Please play with it and send us any feedback. As with every year, we do automatic error checking, keep our scorer very up-to

    Comment


    • #3
      I think an official clarification is needed.

      The green text indicates a specific scoring requirement. There is no text that says the scoring requirements have a ranking or hierarchy or required sequence.

      The first bullet indicates that you get 16 points for removing all four core samples from their axle. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th bullets (12 or 10 or 8 points) could be accomplished by removing just three or two of the core samples from the axle. But the "Possible Scores" text omits these point values.
      Last edited by Tom Mosher; 08-04-2018, 12:05 PM. Reason: Fixed typo: "greet" to "green".
      FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dna1990 View Post
        First thought is that only the "Technically Speaking" text is final/binding.
        [Note: Alan and I have been asked to see if we can be persuasive about this topic in the forums, rather than having to (potentially) restate the scoring conditions in an Update. Alan made sure that any ambiguity in understanding was exposed for consideration.]

        David's statement is not precisely correct. The actual statement is: 'only the text following "TECHNICALLY SPEAKING" is used for scoring.' [my emphasis]

        There are three types of text that follow "TECHNICALLY SPEAKING"
        • the bulleted scoring requirements
        • italicized statements
        • Possible Scores
        There aren't any bolded headings between these types of text, either.


        The italicized statements are pretty much clarifications or instructions to the Teams and Referees about how to interpret the scoring requirements for the Mission (definition of "independent", clarification of what counts as part of the Astronaut) or what actions may be allowed (removing the Meteoroid Ring).
        None of the italicized statements is actually a scoring requirement, a required method, or an visible end condition (green, asterisk, underline). They just provide supporting information.
        It's apparent that we want to allow the italicized statements as being relevant for scoring, and that is easy if we accept them as "text following T.S."


        Similarly, the Possible Scores occur as text underneath "TECHNICALLY SPEAKING." If we accept them as meaningful for scoring, then there's clear, indirect evidence that having the four Core Samples separate from the axle is a required pre-condition for any of the other scoring requirements.
        You might note that there are several other Missions that have a required condition as the first bullet in their list of scoring requirements. [This would be the only one worth points itself.]

        What do you think? Can you live with this understanding?

        For what it's worth, I think that we all would insist on an Update/clarification if a list of Possible Scores was definitely wrong. [That happened at least once during the pre-release reviews.] That's not determinative, but it may incline you to accept the provided list until it was clearly proved wrong.

        Steve

        [I've activated the copy/paste bug three times while trying to publish this post, so I hope that I haven't left something useful out...]
        Last edited by scherrsj; 08-03-2018, 12:56 AM.
        Steve Scherr
        Referee and Judge, Virginia-DC, Maryland, and Ohio
        FLL Global Head Referee

        Comment


        • #5
          Having all the words after Technically Speaking used for scoring/ref purposes - is indeed a helpful tool/fact for folks to make decisions on. Thanks.

          I can't remember the example now, but seems a similar issue was present one year with Diaz's system, in that it validated you could only input X number of something, when later thru the season - folks agreed it was legal to actually have X+1 of that example. In the "rare" cases it ever came up, we just amended the score manually, or there was another mission worth same points we would credit the team with, etc.

          The point of that memory, is that it was rare and there were decent workarounds if it occurred. I think same here, even we all agree now that bullet 1 is required - if later a local ref and a local team can determine/agree somewhere down the road to give only Gas/Water points - I am sure it can be done.


          So I think you are asking the group - is it fundamentally wrong or incorrect enough to warrant an update?

          What if we compare this to the relationship between M05 and M03, where only the first M05 sample could be used to achieve M03 and eject the brick. I think long standing FLL traditions for missions is that they are independent by nature and what does the field look like when the match concludes. We would allow M03 to be scored even if M05 didn't complete - or perhaps M05 had some "fault" whereby the ref deemed it "void" in some way. M03 would not be affected. Similar to last year, the sludge puck "could" have been grabbed from the treatment model and placed on the flower box, without actually doing the treatment mission. That one held little advantage so I doubt it ever occurred - but was a legal move.

          Now the objectives within M05 are certainly not as independent as the above examples, but it is the same idea.

          It is that "non-linear" thinking that I personally find so valuable to FIRST, so perhaps I champion it more than seems relevant to scoring/ref talks. We may never "get to Mars and beyond" if we always assume one has to rocket form Earth first, then do X, then do Y. Some kid may find that skipping or re-ordering the steps - is just what we need for success. Or what we should use for straws and why do we use straws and where do they come from or where do they go, etc.

          OK OK, back to the question. Grin.



          I think the value of an update is positive, because I believe that prescribed sequence should only be required when official text says so. This would hopefully energize kids to explore for other ideas, not just in this Challenge, but in their daily lives.

          So what is the cost. For THIS update, I don't think there is a time urgency. Meaning with some updates you want to get them out as soon as possible, so that teams don't commit to solutions that become impacted by the change. Most teams will of course "want" to get all four samples off, and that is what they will build towards. This possible update only would help refs/scorekeepers reward them partially if bullet 1 fails for some reason. So we have the luxury to wait, if we choose to do one at all.

          Second cost, could be to scoring systems. I would think if a scoring system could ADD validation like this, it would be simple to remove. But if softwares have already been written and disseminated, then I can understand the cost of rippling out a new version. On the other hand, any such software should know that things can change as each season unfolds and 30,000 teams look at the Challenge and scoring with new eyes.


          Bottom line, I am fine either way. Without any update, "if" it were to happen at a local event, "and" the team asks for and states a fluent case for a Gas or Water-only score, I'd likely amend there score and give it to em. GP5.4.

          David Stolz
          Texas SE - Houston


          Comment


          • #6
            I understand what Steve is saying, and I'm inclined to be persuaded, but there's still a problem. The statement "...Get all of the Core Samples...." isn't under Technically Speaking. It is supported by the list of possible scores, so I'm in the "must remove all 4 to get points for water and gas" camp, but the Simply Speaking text here does throw possible confusion into M03 scoring. I agree with David's logic and would allow a M03 score without removing all 4 samples from M05, despite the reference to M03 in M05's Strictly Speaking.

            I like the explicit statements in the Scoring Requirements Signals section, and the attempt to clarify success or failure to score is appreciated. Thank you. But I think the headings "Strictly Speaking" and "Technically Speaking" are potentially confusing. "Strict" implies "required" even though the section isn't mentioned in the Signals. Next year, how about not labeling the italicized text, or call it something like "Mission Description"? And just call the section with the requirements "Scoring Requirements".
            Kansas City Region Head Ref 2014-present
            KC Region coaches and teams can ask FLL robot game rules questions at kcfllref@gmail.com

            Comment


            • #7
              there's clear, indirect evidence that having the four Core Samples separate from the axle is a required pre-condition for any of the other scoring requirements.
              I don't think "clear indirect evidence" is present. I think it's confusing and contradictory. An update to avoid referees and teams making the "incorrect" interpretation is probably needed.
              FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

              Comment


              • #8
                Another point. There is a rule that says if something isn't mentioned, then it doesn't matter. The mission rule doesn't mention that you have to complete Bullet 1 before you can score points under the other bullets. So GP says that "it doesn't matter". But in this case, it is implied that the unstated requirement does matter.

                Some teams might pick up on the requirement that is hidden in the scores. Some (most?) won't.

                I think an Update is required, to avoid teams spending their season developing a strategy that Referees will have to disallow.

                FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                Comment


                • #9
                  There isn't a "Strictly Speaking" here that I can see, so I don't know where that comes from.

                  The policy should not be to avoid updates. It should be to avoid bad updates. It has been a near-annual event to have updates that require updates. That is what should be avoided. We have enough smart people here to completely prevent that, if we are permitted to review the specific wording.

                  In this mission, I think it is clear (whether intended or not) that you cannot score 8,10,12,18, 20, 22, 30 (i.e. any combination of the cores without scoring the full extraction). If that is what is wanted, we don't need an update. And I don't see the need to update M03, since that is not in Technically Speaking in M05, and M05 doesn't appear in the T.S. of M03.
                  MA Head Referee since 1999
                  Sharon Youth Robotics Association

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There isn't a "Strictly Speaking" here that I can see, so I don't know where that comes from.
                    M05 does have a "Strictly Speaking" text block.

                    Personally I don't think it is adequately clear that you have to complete Bullet 1 before you can get credit for Bullets 2, 3, and 4. If there is a required sequence, the rule should say that plainly. Burying the implied sequence by the absence of the point values in the list of scores feels like a trick that I do not want to have to explain to teams after their match finishes.
                    FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JackGregory View Post
                      The policy ... should be to avoid bad updates.
                      The FLL folks at FIRST have recently come up with a better-defined process about the mechanics of how updates are issued, and what the timelines are. Scott expects to share drafts among a small group of us for discussion for part of a day, so we're optimistic that we'll be able to head off any really egregious wording. (It takes all of our community to come up with the most interesting interpretations of text, of course!)

                      The timeline says that any updates should come out Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning Eastern US time, and international partners will have had a day or so to be translated, so that there's more uniform access world wide.
                      Steve Scherr
                      Referee and Judge, Virginia-DC, Maryland, and Ohio
                      FLL Global Head Referee

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        No "Strictly" that I can see. See attached. Are we working from difference sources? That would be bad. NotStrickly.JPG
                        MA Head Referee since 1999
                        Sharon Youth Robotics Association

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: "Strictly Speaking"
                          I see now. I think that's just a typo in "someonewhobikes" post of Aug. 4, which I repeated without recognizing the typo. The posts should have referred to "Simply Speaking", not "Strictly Speaking".


                          FIRST LEGO League Mentor and Referee/Head Referee since 2011.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Here's a preview of what to expect. Alan and I talked with Scott and team on 14 August.Scott is planning to put together an update/clarification to include additional possible scores for M05--Extraction and state that removal of all four Core Samples is not a prerequisite for other scoring in the mission. I think that he appreciated the viewpoint that there was a hidden requirement.
                            Steve Scherr
                            Referee and Judge, Virginia-DC, Maryland, and Ohio
                            FLL Global Head Referee

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tom Mosher View Post
                              Re: "Strictly Speaking"
                              I see now. I think that's just a typo in "someonewhobikes" post of Aug. 4, which I repeated without recognizing the typo. The posts should have referred to "Simply Speaking", not "Strictly Speaking".
                              Unfortunately, that wasn't a typo. It was a "apparently I need new glasses and/or need to increase the font size in my browser and/or I need to work on my reading comprehension" error. I apologize for the confusion.

                              Having said that - I would still like to see those sections with titles that are simple to understand. "Technically Speaking" should be something like "Scoring Requirements "
                              Kansas City Region Head Ref 2014-present
                              KC Region coaches and teams can ask FLL robot game rules questions at kcfllref@gmail.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X