View Full Version : Gracious Professionalism?
The following is a recap of an incident I witnessed at a recent regional. The names have been omitted to protect the not so innocent.
My team was on the bubble of being an alliance captain. If one or two alliance captains were picked, we would move up and select. I was busily finalizing our pick list when a student from another team approached me and another one of our mentors. This student told us their robot was broken, would not run and we should not pick them. I took this individual at his word. I could see his team's pit. They were two or three spots away from us. The robot was there, but no repair activity was taking place. This was at most 5 or 10 minutes away from the start of the alliance selection process. So it certainly looked like the robot was beyond repair.
The selection process began. And as expected we did move into the process and became an alliance captain. We were subsequently picked by a higher ranked alliance.
The plot thickens. When it came time for the number one alliance to make their second choice, lo and behold they picked the team that told us their robot was broken. This alliance of course went on to win the regional.
Thoughts anyone? Ever had an experience like that?
pfreivald
25-03-2012, 13:49
Thoughts anyone?
My thoughts are that we should all worry about our own actions and integrity, and let other teams worry about their own.
If indeed this is true, you now know more about the team in question than you did previously, and can take that new information into consideration going forward.
I'd leave it at that. And delete this thread.
/my thoughts
xSAWxBLADEx
25-03-2012, 13:51
I have seen this not this year but last year. we were 7th seed and a team did the same thing to us. It says the extreme opposite of Mr.Kamen's vision for FIRST. If you want to be picked by the first seed alliance go up to the team that you think might pick you and show them your scouting. You show them a better pick than you. Please don't say that your robot is broke. This is extreme ungracious professionalism and it's sad to see more teams doing this. I feel you discust.
JaneYoung
25-03-2012, 14:01
There's always a way to get around core values and the visionary aspect of the program, isn't there? Playing dead sounds like a great work around.
What does that teach the members of a team that are a part of the game of playing dead? That's my question.
Jane
EDIT: After reading Patrick's post below, I thought about deleting my post, initially. I've rethought it and have decided to leave it in as food for thought - not as an assumption or criticism.
pfreivald
25-03-2012, 14:07
The team didn't play dead, by the way. They had a known, legitimate hardware problem with their drivers' station -- and by the way it did impact play once during the elimination tournament, though fortunately for them and their alliance it wasn't disastrous.
The facts here have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have good friends on the team in question, and when I heard this rumor before elims started I did something crazy -- I went and spoke with them about what I heard. The response was, "Yeah, we have a broken joystick. It cuts out intermittently, and it's been a problem all weekend."
They were as surprised as anyone that they were picked in spite of this problem -- and it's wonderful that they contributed well to their alliance throughout eliminations.
The facts here have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have good friends on the team in question, and when I heard this rumor before elims started I did something crazy -- I went and spoke with them about what I heard. The response was, "Yeah, we have a broken joystick. It cuts out intermittently, and it's been a problem all weekend."
Where to start with this...The facts are correct. There were three people party to this particular conversation. Only those three people would know what was said. After the student left, I spoke with the other mentor that was present. I recounted what I heard and it was confirmed back to me.
And curiously enough, the component we were told could not be repaired was NOT a joystick.
pfreivald
25-03-2012, 14:23
Where to start with this...The facts are correct. There were three people party to this particular conversation. Only those three people would know what was said. After the student left, I spoke with the other mentor that was present. I recounted what I heard and it was confirmed back to me.
And curiously enough, the component we were told could not be repaired was NOT a joystick.
There's nothing I can say to that except that I simply do not believe it. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying that somewhere the facts got confused -- perhaps by the students, perhaps by you, perhaps somewhere in the telling.
I stand by my original post: even if you're 100% correct on the facts (and thus I am not), posting it here is the wrong way to deal with it.
BrendanB
25-03-2012, 14:27
Whenever I hear this, I ask what is broken sometimes it is basic and other times it is detrimental. Odds are the number 1 seed didn't know about the issue, picked them, and fixed the problem over lunch or said team told everyone but the number 1 seed that they were broken because the number 1 seed said they would pick them if they were still around.
In either scenario whether false or true its not my team, not my problem, and we probably shouldn't be talking about the GP of another team on an online forum. Its kinda like gossiping about the integrity of another person, you're just dragging yourself down even more.
elemental
25-03-2012, 14:27
I can understand where the team that told you they were broken were coming from. Last year, I told a rookie team not to pick my team for eliminations. My team's robot was a poor performer and the rookie's robot never scored a point despite the fact that they were seeded 4th. We would not have been a good choice for them and I suggested other teams they could choose who were more capable.
Eliminations came and, to my team's surprise, we were chosen by the 7th seed and then ended up winning the quarterfinals against the same rookie team I talked to previously.
In the end, I did feel rather bad about the situation. However, I also knew that we would not have helped if we were picked by the rookies due to our own scoring issues.
Perhaps the team that told you their robot was broken did so because they thought they would cause more problems for your alliance than help it.
There's nothing I can say to that except that I simply do not believe it. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm just saying that somewhere the facts got confused -- perhaps by the students, perhaps by you, perhaps somewhere in the telling.
I stand by my original post: even if you're 100% correct on the facts (and thus I am not), posting it here is the wrong way to deal with it.
Emphasis mine. I agree 100% with the bolded statement. If you have a problem with a team, talk to them about it person to person, or PM them. The entirety of Chief Delphi doesn't need to know about it.
Andrew Lawrence
25-03-2012, 14:37
Perhaps the team that told you their robot was broken did so because they thought they would cause more problems for your alliance than help it.
This. Not all robots work with other robots. A robot that scores well with you may not be of any use on another alliance. It's nothing against the team. Their strategy may not work with your strategy.
Another option regarding the OP's post. What I'm thinking is that, like Brandon said, the 1st seed told them if they were doing well by alliance selection time, they'd choose them. If another alliance before the 1st alliance chose them, and they declined, the 1st alliance may think their robot is still broken, and therefore don't invite them to join the alliance because of that. The one team who invited them earlier just ruined the team's chances of alliancing with the #1 alliance, by making it seem as if they are still broken. It could also be that the #1 alliance told them that they know how to fix the problem and will help them during lunch.
All in all, I highly doubt that the team in question purposely lied to you to bring you to a disadvantage.
In this thread entitled Elitist Teams, http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=105021, Paul Copioli had this to say:
"Unfortunately, incidents like the one the OP mentioned will happen and the more we communicate about it, the less misunderstanding we will have."
Now this was pertaining to another matter questioning a teams gracious professionalism. It was because of that thread I decided to start this thread. And Mr Copioli's comment still applies here.
Perhaps the team that told you their robot was broken did so because they thought they would cause more problems for your alliance than help it.
Apparently they told more than just my team. The rumor appears to have been making the rounds.
when I heard this rumor before elims started I did something crazy -- I went and spoke with them about what I heard. The response was, "Yeah, we have a broken joystick. It cuts out intermittently, and it's been a problem all weekend."
They were as surprised as anyone that they were picked in spite of this problem -- and it's wonderful that they contributed well to their alliance throughout eliminations.
I would think a joystick problem would be easy to fix. Unplug one and plug another one in. There were no pit announcements I heard regarding a team needing a joystick.
Odds are the number 1 seed didn't know about the issue, picked them, and fixed the problem over lunch or said team told everyone but the number 1 seed that they were broken because the number 1 seed said they would pick them if they were still around.
A good way to ensure you are still around is to tell any other teams who could potentially pick you that you are broken.
EricLeifermann
25-03-2012, 15:06
This. Not all robots work with other robots. A robot that scores well with you may not be of any use on another alliance. It's nothing against the team. Their strategy may not work with your strategy.
Another option regarding the OP's post. What I'm thinking is that, like Brandon said, the 1st seed told them if they were doing well by alliance selection time, they'd choose them. If another alliance before the 1st alliance chose them, and they declined, the 1st alliance may think their robot is still broken, and therefore don't invite them to join the alliance because of that. The one team who invited them earlier just ruined the team's chances of alliancing with the #1 alliance, by making it seem as if they are still broken. It could also be that the #1 alliance told them that they know how to fix the problem and will help them during lunch.
All in all, I highly doubt that the team in question purposely lied to you to bring you to a disadvantage.
If they were selected by an alliance other than the alliance they wanted to be selected by and they declined it wouldn't matter what the 1st seeded alliance thought because they wouldn't be able to pick them.
You cannot decline and then accept a different offer.
elemental
25-03-2012, 15:11
Apparently they told more than just my team. The rumor appears to have been making the rounds.
What to you mean?
If another alliance before the 1st alliance chose them, and they declined, the 1st alliance may think their robot is still broken, and therefore don't invite them to join the alliance because of that.
If you decline, you can't get picked. That's the rules, not someone thinking the team is broken.
In this case, I don't know all the facts. Two different versions of events are being presented that are wildly different. So I'm not going to make any call.
What I am going to say is that if you have an issue with your robot, and you might be picked for eliminations, it's fair to mention that you have an issue to pickers. They'll help you to get your robot together, or will decide not to select you based on that--and if you're picked, it's to be expected that you'll get help with the issue and show up functional.
However, if you say that your robot will not run, or is otherwise completely unable to play in eliminations, and then turn up for eliminations with a fully-functional robot, you can expect some strange looks, some pointed questions, and/or some long memories in later years from teams that would have picked you and that you told that to. Hopefully, it's just that you thought the problem was worse than it actually was. If you deliberately lie to get on the alliance you want... well, you are the one that will have to live with that decision.
What to you mean?
What I mean is very clearly more than just my team was told about this non-functioning or poorly functioning robot.
The facts here have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have good friends on the team in question, and when I heard this rumor before elims started I did something crazy -- I went and spoke with them about what I heard. The response was, "Yeah, we have a broken joystick. It cuts out intermittently, and it's been a problem all weekend."
robochick1319
25-03-2012, 15:40
This is not a new strategy in the FIRST universe. However, it is a very risky strategy. If the #1 alliance came up to you and said, "Play dead and we'll pick you second," you have two choices: trust them and do it, or play it safe and make yourself available. It is a very risky strategy and in my many years of doing this, I have found that people's promises are not reliable.
It is important to remember that teams are made up of many individuals who may or may not the details of the strategy. Student A could tell you one thing because he or she honestly believes it is true, but could be totally unaware of what Students B, C, D, E and Mentors A, B, C (etc) are planning.
Did they lie to you? Possibly. Did they get lucky? Absolutely.
FIRST is great at teaching students about gracious professionalism and the ability to overcome obstacles. But it is not an unrealistic sport. There is lying, cheating, and unfairness. But that is life. The best lesson for our students is to teach them how to deal with the negative aspects of FIRST (and life) and overcome them to succeed.
Besides, that kind of behavior brings bad karma anyway. Believe it.
pfreivald
25-03-2012, 15:46
The joystick statement is mine -- it was something control-system related, maybe a port or something else. On that detail I'm admittedly fuzzy. (Last year, our classmate had a loose USB connection -- it cost us two qualifying matches, and was not something we could just replace.)
Either way, here ain't the place.
wireties
25-03-2012, 15:57
Either way, here ain't the place.
Wow - I hope this un-GP story is not true. I don't see how one could be 100% sure. I'm inclined to stick my head in the sand, assume this is simply a mis-understanding and not common place in FIRST. Either way, I'm with preivald, CD is not the right place.
Wow - I hope this un-GP story is not true. I don't see how one could be 100% sure. I'm inclined to stick my head in the sand, assume this is simply a mis-understanding and not common place in FIRST. Either way, I'm with preivald, CD is not the right place.
I have stated what I experienced. And I am 100% sure of what I experienced. The events occurred as I recounted them.
If we can't discuss this here, where then can we?
Once again, I offer this as a great answer:
Unfortunately, incidents like the one the OP mentioned will happen and the more we communicate about it, the less misunderstanding we will have.
The quote is from another thread discussing questions of GP. It still applies here.
If we can't discuss this here, where then can we?
The problem is that you are not discussing it with the team that you have the issue with. Instead, you are accusing the team in a very public place that might not have any of the team members present.
Talk to the team. Phone/Email/CD Private Message/In Person.
BrendanB
25-03-2012, 16:30
I have stated what I experienced. And I am 100% sure of what I experienced. The events occurred as I recounted them.
If we can't discuss this here, where then can we?
Once again, I offer this as a great answer:
The quote is from another thread discussing questions of GP. It still applies here.
The problem is that you are not discussing it with the team that you have the issue with. Instead, you are accusing the team in a very public place that might not have any of the team members present.
Talk to the team. Phone/Email/CD Private Message/In Person.
I wouldn't recommend doing that! We don't know the details so we are all making false accusations. What good could come from hashing out accusations/emailing the team? It happened, you can't change it, its not the end of the world, you don't know what happened.
In short move along, nothing to see here!
I have stated what I experienced. And I am 100% sure of what I experienced. The events occurred as I recounted them.
If we can't discuss this here, where then can we?
First: It is entirely possible that both of you are correct. Either different people on a team told different people not on the team different stories, or you're talking about different events, or some combination. Either way, discussing it in public doesn't do much. And insisting that you are 100% right doesn't do much for relationships with people that disagree. There're always at least two ways to look at this sort of situation
As for where you can discuss it:
You can discuss it at the event with the team in question.
You can discuss it as a team.
You could pass it off as "maybe they got it fixed with some help and the runner wasn't told" and not discuss it beyond that.
You can discuss it in PMs.
You can even ask a general question about what someone would think about if a team told everyone they were broken only to be picked. You could put it in FAHA's mailbox or (with care) in YMTC--I think this is the kind of topic that could go in either--as a hypothetical situation.
But to post it in the way you did makes it almost an accusation of cheating--if one person can identify the team/event correctly, and makes a mistake in how they refer to it, everyone knows. And accusations of cheating tend to turn into flame wars, which we don't like. I've seen more than a few.
JaneYoung
25-03-2012, 16:41
I think the general discussion of cheating and finding ways around the system is an important discussion. Perhaps it is a discussion for another thread that does not involve finger pointing or calling any teams out.
FIRST, as an organization, can only do so much. The GDC, as the Game Design Committee, can only do so much. It boils down to the individual team mentors and the values they want to instill in their students and what kind of reputation they want their team to develop and to maintain in the FIRST community.
We have many teams that are new to FRC and they are probably receiving a lot of mixed messages. Healthy discussions can help with the confusion.
Jane
kjohnson
25-03-2012, 16:41
I stand by my original post: even if you're 100% correct on the facts (and thus I am not), posting it here is the wrong way to deal with it.
If you have a problem with a team, talk to them about it person to person, or PM them. The entirety of Chief Delphi doesn't need to know about it.
Either way, here ain't the place.
Either way, I'm with preivald, CD is not the right place.
I must disagree with all of you on this. After an event is over and you have time to calm down is the perfect time to discuss situations like this. Tom went about this in the best way, and left the questionable team's name and number out of the conversation (I applaud everyone else for doing the same). Did he come out and say they should be banned from competing or that their regional win should be stripped from them? No, Tom specifically asked for our thoughts and previous experiences with situations like this.
Proceed to thread derail. Everything in FIRST is not hunky-dory. Teams sometimes use questionable strategies and referees sometimes make questionable calls. We're playing basketball this year. If something questionable happened in the NBA would it be swept under the rug or would Skip Bayless aimlessly talk about it for an hour on SportsCenter? Many things get discussed in depth on CD, often on controversial topics and leading to heated discussion. CD is FIRST's SportsCenter.
Unfortunately, incidents like the one the OP mentioned will happen and the more we communicate about it, the less misunderstanding we will have.
Just as Tom mentioned above, Paul Copioli's comment from the Elitist thread applies here. Was there a misunderstanding of whether the robot or the control system was broken? Sure sounds like it, and discussing things like this will help teams understand that they should be more clear with information like that.
If anyone disagrees, I gladly accept PMs. The main forum is not the place to discuss the validity of a topic that is already being discussed, it only leads to further off-topic discussion.
/derail
What I am going to say is that if you have an issue with your robot, and you might be picked for eliminations, it's fair to mention that you have an issue to pickers. They'll help you to get your robot together, or will decide not to select you based on that--and if you're picked, it's to be expected that you'll get help with the issue and show up functional.
However, if you say that your robot will not run, or is otherwise completely unable to play in eliminations, and then turn up for eliminations with a fully-functional robot, you can expect some strange looks, some pointed questions, and/or some long memories in later years from teams that would have picked you and that you told that to. Hopefully, it's just that you thought the problem was worse than it actually was. If you deliberately lie to get on the alliance you want... well, you are the one that will have to live with that decision.
Eric nailed it. Teams (as a whole) must live with the decisions made by any member of the team.
Why not just request them anyway if you want them bad enough? If they are broken beyond repair you still have the backup robots. This is particularly valid if you are a low seed alliance because risks often need to be taken to beat a typical 1-3 seed alliance. A worthy risk is grabbing a robot that might break down in a match, but if it doesn't is one of the best robots at the regional. Anyway, if the problem was bad enough, they would likely decline your invite out of GP.
Tristan Lall
25-03-2012, 17:09
Once again, I'm finding myself advocating for a more libertarian position. It's uncomfortable to do that—because most systems don't self-regulate very well, and libertarians screw this up all the time—but I think under the circumstances, it will lead to a better outcome.
Regarding the team that allegedly deceived you. Hopefully it was just an innocent miscommunication: maybe the team member delivering the message was mistaken about the nature of the problem. And if it was innocent, someone from that team can hopefully be persuaded to come onto ChiefDelphi and make a statement to that effect. That serves everyone's interests, because the record is set straight.
And if it wasn't innocent, it's good to know that some teams need to be watched a little more closely. Like Eric said, we have long memories—and the community's opinion matters.
Nevertheless, I don't think they were strictly wrong in a moral sense to be deceptive (if they did so), because they have no obligation to tell the absolute truth. I'm unwilling to stretch gracious professionalism to the extent that it would represent a commitment to the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to every potential alliance partner. Teams have real preferences with respect to who they play with, and will be playing against many other alliances later—so being fully forthright can be like sabotaging your own alliance's chances of competing effectively. (Think of this from the perspective of the team being picked: should they lay it all out on the table and leave their eventual fate to others, or is it acceptable to also be strategic in the release of information to take some control over their own destiny? On one hand, this messing around represents friction opposing rational decision-making. But on the other hand, that friction is already there as a result of innocent mistakes—the picking team has to do its due diligence anyway.)
If we don't have this discussion on the forum, then some people may well ostracize the team—because they don't want to take the risk. Others will go in without knowledge of the backstory, and may get burned because of it. It's like journalism: a clumsy and imprecise way of getting at important details, but one that's nonetheless frequently more efficient than everybody having to draw their own conclusions without the benefit of evidence. And by having this discussion, here on the forum, we allow the system to self-regulate: every team has access to the same information, has a similar ability to digest it, and can each make rational choices based upon it.
The team didn't play dead, by the way. They had a known, legitimate hardware problem with their drivers' station -- and by the way it did impact play once during the elimination tournament, though fortunately for them and their alliance it wasn't disastrous.
The facts here have been either misinterpreted or misunderstood. I have good friends on the team in question, and when I heard this rumor before elims started I did something crazy -- I went and spoke with them about what I heard. The response was, "Yeah, we have a broken joystick. It cuts out intermittently, and it's been a problem all weekend."
They were as surprised as anyone that they were picked in spite of this problem -- and it's wonderful that they contributed well to their alliance throughout eliminations.If they believed their robot wasn't working, why did they accept their invitation?
And what's with this sudden sentiment that anything even remotely controversial should absolutely never be discussed or even brought up on CD? What, exactly, are we supposed to be using this forum for then?
pfreivald
25-03-2012, 19:05
Nevertheless, I don't think they were strictly wrong in a moral sense to be deceptive (if they did so)
No surprise I disagree with you here -- there's nothing even vaguely gracious about lying to someone for your own advantage.
...but given that this particular, very ugly and fictional cat is out of the bag, this:
And by having this discussion, here on the forum, we allow the system to self-regulate: every team has access to the same information, has a similar ability to digest it, and can each make rational choices based upon it.
is reasonable.
People are free to believe Tuba4 or me or whomever else -- but I hope they'll be willing to give the benefit of the doubt that they themselves would like to receive if similar accusations were leveled at them.
If they believed their robot wasn't working, why did they accept their invitation?
That's the point: I'm the wrong person to ask. You'd have to ask the parties involved.
And what's with this sudden sentiment that anything even remotely controversial should absolutely never be discussed or even brought up on CD? What, exactly, are we supposed to be using this forum for then?
I didn't say that we should avoid controversy (and indeed, anyone who has followed any of my posts since I joined this wonderful place knows I'm not one to shy away from such discussions) -- what I said was that making accusations against a team on Chief Delphi is inappropriate. Discussions of questionable behavior are fine, but this is personal and besmirches every member of the accused team.
We know what regional he's talking about, we know what teams he's talking about... This isn't reasonable discussion, it's libelous smearing.
I didn't say that -- I said that making accusations against a team on Chief Delphi is inappropriate. Discussions of questionable behavior are fine, but this is personal and besmirches every member of the accused team.
We know what regional he's talking about, we know what team he's talking about... This isn't reasonable discussion, it's libelous smearing.
I have re-read my comments in this thread. I have never mentioned the regional, nor will I. I have never mentioned a team name or number, nor will I. I have simply stated here is what I saw, here is what I heard and here is what I experienced. To state otherwise, I believe, is irresponsible and perhaps in and of itself libelous.
This situation is at best a misunderstanding or at worst questionable behavior. And you have just stated discussions of questionable behavior are acceptable topics for this forum.
I have re-read my comments in this thread. I have never mentioned the regional, nor will I. I have never mentioned a team name or number, nor will I.
This is all well and good. However, you did give enough information that someone else was able to determine both the event and the team. This means that presumably they were at the event, or heard about it from someone who was.
I personally don't know the event or the team. I could probably make some simple deductions and take a reasonable guess at both the event and team(s) involved. However, I will not do this. I prefer not to know some things.
And now that accusations of libelous comments are starting to be thrown around: I presume that you all know where your house doors are. There's some nice weather outside, or has been. Go! Enjoy it! Come back in a day or two and resume this discussion with clearer heads!
Mike Starke
25-03-2012, 19:56
I have re-read my comments in this thread. I have never mentioned the regional, nor will I. I have never mentioned a team name or number, nor will I.
The fact that your team number is on your profile and very visible when you make a post, people can simply look up what regional your team was at this weekend, and find out what team you are talking about. You we're trying to be "discrete" about this "not so innocent" team, with out actually being discrete.
To truly protect the identity of this team, a much better approach would be completely objective and just bring up the topic of a team possibly being un-GP, and lightly describe the situation, without saying "the regional WE were at, and MY team" etc... because now the idenity of this team has been severely compromised. And now people may form thoughts and biases against this team for things that may or may not have happened!
pfreivald
25-03-2012, 19:57
I have re-read my comments in this thread. I have never mentioned the regional, nor will I. I have never mentioned a team name or number, nor will I.
You opened with:
The following is a recap of an incident I witnessed at a recent regional. The names have been omitted to protect the not so innocent.
My team was on the bubble of being an alliance captain. If one or two alliance captains were picked, we would move up and select.
Given those pieces of information, all it takes is 30 seconds on usfirst.org or thebluealliance.com... You attended Pittsburgh, where you were 8th seed and thus guaranteed to be an alliance captain, and you attended Buckeye, where you were 11th seed and thus "on the bubble of being an alliance captain. If one or two [sic: three] alliance captains were picked, [you] would move up and select."
You are accusing 3015 of dishonestly colluding with 340 and/or 1507, and I'm not sure how you think that wasn't blatantly obvious.
Grim Tuesday
25-03-2012, 20:08
Maybe it's time to revive the moderated discussion board. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=125)
Not sure who lives in a glass house, but perhaps some constraint would be in order before this one goes too much further.
Seems odd to me that the name of the thread has demonstrated so little of it.
Discussions are good, accusations are bad - and there is a way to hold a discussion in a civil manner (if you really try).
Now, can we all just chill a little and remind yourself why you are here (in the ChiefDelphi community) in the first place?
Thanks,
Mike
Seth Mallory
25-03-2012, 20:34
This thread brings up a very good point that I try to teach. It is not what you say but what you are heard to say. This is why at times I ask for a summery of what I have just instructed someone. The problem could be between fellow team members and the misinformation is spread of as the message is given to other teams. Or a team may hear it differently. People hear differently. At FIRST you can have hurt feelings. Where I work you get sued or fired. This is a good lesson to learn from.
Chris Fultz
25-03-2012, 20:45
A few years ago we had an incident with behavior from another team towards one of our students.
I instructed our students to "keep it off of CD". Instead, I found the team website and made contact with the lead mentor. We had some email exchanges and resolved the concerns. The mentor and rest of the team had no idea of what had happened but addressed the situation and we all moved on. Right now I don't even remember the team involved - so our discussion closed the issue. Had there been a debate on CD I am sure there would still be open wounds.
So, my point is, in these "situations", have a team mentor contact a mentor from the other team and have a discussion to get a clear understanding. The true story is usually somewhere in between.
rees2001
25-03-2012, 20:49
Can we please stop all of this now! I have been following this thread all day and finally feel ready to post my thoughts and not my feelings. I hope this thread becomes a lesson in where to start a thread about an issue with a team. If you feel you have been wronged bring it up in a moderated thread with anonymity. It is way too easy to affect the reputation of teams, even if not intentional. As it has been stated, there were no precautions taken to hide true details about the origins of this issue.
I say this because MY team may be perceived to be guilty by association. We are not, I can assure you that we did not and would not encourage the actions posted above. I hope it was never an intention to imply that there may have been some collusion. Our team has worked hard to build the reputation we have and I would not let anything jeopardize that. I have also known 1507 for many years and in my experience with them they would not risk their reputation on the chance to win a 2nd blue banner of their year.
As for the issue at hand. If research had been done about the team in question, it would have been discovered that they had to be replaced in the final match of the finals at their previous regional because of the issues listed above in this thread. If scouts had watched matches played by them in the recent competition it would have been noted that they were having technical issues with their robot. So much so, that they sat motionless after hybrid as late as Saturday morning.
I will do my best to not let this thread and the rumors about what happened tarnish the happiness I have for my students and my team winning the Buckeye Regional.
I'm kinda astonished that nobody's brought up the most important issue, which is scouting/strategy communication.
Let's say I'm team 817, and I know that team 3113 is instrumental to our strategy, more than any other team. First of all, I know that they are, because I've scouted every single match, and know exactly what they're capable of. I also know that if there's an issue with their robot, it didn't take place on the field, because there's no scouting data on it. So unless they fried their electronics, I'm going to assume it's a fixable issue. Or if they did have an issue with their flux capacitor in matches 32 & 48, I know what it is. So the most Gracious Professional thing I could think of is to track down 3113's mentors and ask if my 817 mentors could help fix their robot before eliminations.
And getting back to scouting, I wouldn't be trusting the word of a student to know what's fixable or not. He could've overheard other 3113 students or mentors talking and misunderstood. I never give pit scouting credence. I tell all my students, "If someone comes up asking about the robots capabilities, tell them to watch the matches." I may even believe myself that my robot can score 10 balls in auton & balance in 5.3 seconds, but unless it translates into QPs, it doesn't mean squat what I say.
Take it as a lesson learned about scouting & next time, ask not what your alliance picks can do for you, but what you can do for your alliance picks.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.