View Full Version : Rookie Team impressions from Kettering
John Hooper
09-03-2008, 19:29
We are back from the rookie competition at Kettering University in Flint, Michigan, and I was asked to pass along my impressions of the competition.
As co-leader of the MiGHT Robotics team, I found the event to be wonderful. There were some nasty technical difficulties in the beginning, but the arena electronics problems were completely unprecedented in the history of FIRST, so live and learn.
I thought the event, the announcer, the referees, and the teams that came just to help out were really great and created a very positive impression for rookie teams.
If I were going to complain, it wouldn’t be about the event, it would be that certain aspects of the game were completely wrong for the teams and spectators. Games should not be decided by the referees after the game is over. I can’t think of any sport that consistently forces referees to decide the outcome of matches. Spectators want to be in the moment, and waiting to find out who “really” won after the match, based on penalties, is a big negative. Also, the penalties seemed overly harsh and capricious. In real sporting events, teams are penalized for doing things that give them an advantage. Accidentally “breaking the plane” of a line you have crossed conferred no advantage, and was penalized very harshly in a game where it is difficult to score. It would be like if the NFL had a one touchdown penalty for an offensive linemen stepping back with his right foot first instead of his left.
Imagine how the team (and particularly the individual driver) felt who lost his or her team and alliance the final match by “breaking the plane”. Why in the world is that a TEN POINT penalty!
So, I thought the event was great, but I think the rules of the game should be more balanced and reasonable, and referees should only very rarely be reversing the outcome of games. For the record, our team had very few penalties, so this isn’t just grumbling.
We had a great time and learned a tremendous amount, so thank you to all those who worked so hard to put on an invaluable event just for us rookies!
John Hooper
MiGHT Robotics
There were some nasty technical difficulties in the beginning, but the arena electronics problems were completely unprecedented in the history of FIRST, so live and learn.
Apparently, you were not in Portland a few years ago. :)
-dave
Imagine how the team (and particularly the individual driver) felt who lost his or her team and alliance the final match by “breaking the plane”. Why in the world is that a TEN POINT penalty!
So, I thought the event was great, but I think the rules of the game should be more balanced and reasonable, and referees should only very rarely be reversing the outcome of games. For the record, our team had very few penalties, so this isn’t just grumbling.
Apparently, you were not in Portland a few years ago. :)
-daveI also don't think he was around in 2005, when the slightest contact with a robot on the other alliance while they were in a certain area was 30 points. That one swung more than one match.
XXShadowXX
09-03-2008, 22:06
i was there, and we didn't have a problem with the breaking the plane issue. Its just part of the game, watch for the flags during the match, and you will get an idea of what the out come will be.
scottanderson
09-03-2008, 22:39
It seems to me that something like an intentional ram or interference should be a bigger penalty than plane breaking, but oh well. It is what it is.
Hopefully we won't have to spend 2.5 hours on the field while everyone else is working on their robots at regionals, though. :-)
John Hooper
09-03-2008, 23:54
Apparently, you were not in Portland a few years ago. :)
-dave
Being a rookie, all I know is what I was told. This problem was with the arena electronics not being able to communicate with all of the robots. At first, some robots could not be shut down, then some of them in certain positions could not move at all.
If this is a common problem, I am surprised they don't bring backup systems. Rock stars don't stop concerts for a few hours to fiddle around with their sound systems.
Having huge penalties for easily made mistakes that give a team no advantage only serves to make the rules more important than the competition, the robots, and the spectators. If the purpose of FIRST is to promote engineering and technology like a sport, hoping to tap into the same excitement that people feel for sports, then the rules should be reasonable and not interfere with the game.
Even if your team didn't have a problem with the rule, the game is played in alliance with two other teams, and either one of them could knock out your entire score in less than ten seconds. I think the actual intent of the rule was to stop teams from going backwards to grab balls or score. It wasn't really the intent of the rule to obliterate a lot of good work just because a robot, while trying to race around a track, over-corrected coming out of a turn.
Also, you can tell spectators to watch for flags and mentally adjust the scores while they are watching, but there is a good reason why sports aren't played this way: people don't like it. People don't want to watch two race cars blast down the final stretch and see one outmuscle the other, only to have it decided five minutes later that actually both of those cars lost because of penalties that happened dozens of laps before, and really the third place car won.
Sure, make the rules any way you like: but if the purpose is to promote your cause and draw in the public, these rules don't work.
Being a rookie, all I know is what I was told. This problem was with the arena electronics not being able to communicate with all of the robots. At first, some robots could not be shut down, then some of them in certain positions could not move at all.
If this is a common problem, I am surprised they don't bring backup systems. Rock stars don't stop concerts for a few hours to fiddle around with their sound systems.
The problem was with the transmitters. They do pack extra transmitters, but there was only one spare left for this event and two transmitters failed. The FTA (official FIRST Tech guru) was trying to fix the system instead of work around it. This is not a common occurence and is usually resolved within an hour. In this case we had to get spare transmitters shipped next-day to fix the system (delivered during lunch Saturday), so when the Qualifying matches commenced, they were on a jury-rigged system.
Seperately, the inspectors mentioned that most teams were glad for the shutdown, because though it was boring for the spectators, the pit crews used this valuable time to greatly upgrade their robots, which resulted in a more exciting competition than what would've happened otherwise. Just a point that a waste of time for some was very valuable to others.
Yata Yata Penalty criticism
The result of all of the penalties being called was more disciplined drivers. As the competition went on, the referees threw fewer and fewer penalties (The finals didn't have any penalties thrown). It's a learning curve that teams work through, and this group of very green teams performed spectacularly in handling the learning curve and other challanges the game presented.
These rookie teams ran the spectrum from decent to spectacular. The rookie hurdlers made for a very exciting elimination round. I think this is the first regional where I can honestly say that there wasn't one useless team. Every team did what it was designed to do very well and efficiently. There weren't any lame ducks on this pond. These teams performed better than many veteran teams that I see.
Apparently, you were not in Portland a few years ago.
I wasn't there, but I saw the webcast and recall two Portlands that had massive delays (one was '04, I think the other was '06). This delay was much worse. At least Mark Leon could keep the crowd somewhat engaged during the shutdown.
John Hooper
10-03-2008, 14:15
Seperately, the inspectors mentioned that most teams were glad for the shutdown, because though it was boring for the spectators, the pit crews used this valuable time to greatly upgrade their robots, which resulted in a more exciting competition than what would've happened otherwise. Just a point that a waste of time for some was very valuable to others.
Our robot, and five others, were kept on the track for hours, so the long delay was both boring to the spectators and a disadvantage to our team and others.
The result of all of the penalties being called was more disciplined drivers. As the competition went on, the referees threw fewer and fewer penalties (The finals didn't have any penalties thrown). It's a learning curve that teams work through, and this group of very green teams performed spectacularly in handling the learning curve and other challanges the game presented.
As I saw it, the referees mercifully relaxed the "breaking the plane" rule quite a bit, which was clearly the right thing to do. We did instruct our drivers to never back up, even if a robot had them blocked in, unless they were absolutely certain they were nowhere near a line. This didn't improve the game, it just meant that people sat stuck at the ends of the track a lot, afraid to back up and go around.
I don't know why anyone wants to argue for a penalty that is obviously far too severe and damages the flow of the game.
I am giving feedback and making suggestions in an attempt to improve the competitions and further the stated goals of FIRST. I am a middle-aged software engineer who is donating a lot of time and money to participate in FIRST because I believe it is a good idea.
Robots can be greatly improved in a few hours, and competitions and competition rules can be improved over time as well -- but not if you spin negatives into positives and live in delusion.
Jack Jones
10-03-2008, 14:25
...
Seperately, the inspectors mentioned that most teams were glad for the shutdown, because though it was boring for the spectators, the pit crews used this valuable time to greatly upgrade their robots, which resulted in a more exciting competition than what would've happened otherwise. Just a point that a waste of time for some was very valuable to others.
The result of all of the penalties being called was more disciplined drivers. As the competition went on, the referees threw fewer and fewer penalties (The finals didn't have any penalties thrown). It's a learning curve that teams work through, and this group of very green teams performed spectacularly in handling the learning curve and other challanges the game presented.
...
What was the up-side for the six on the field and six more in the que during the 3++ hour delay? Do you think maybe the pits should have been closed until all teams had access?
I saw just about as many infractions later on as I saw early, but not as many being called. I assumed it was because the refs had gotten too tired to catch every last one.
John Hooper
10-03-2008, 14:40
Oops, double post.
John, before you think poorly of the penalties this year (a little late, I know), there was a rule in 2005 that was far, far worse.
Starting at the beginning here: There were 8 triangular "loading zones" on the field, 4 per alliance. Teams "in" the zones were protected, much like a hurdler is this year. This was due to safety issues.
Problem #1: the definition of "in the zone" changed repeatedly. Eventually, it was "anything touching the zone is in" and stayed that way. I think this was somewhere around Week 1, maybe a little later.
Problem #2: any contact with a robot retrieving scoring objects in the zone was a 30-point penalty.
Oh, and scores were lower that year, comparatively.
This meant that contacting a robot in the loading zone was almost a sure guarantee of losing the match.
It's better this year, though not by much. At least the refs don't have to decide whether to give 30 points or 10 points in penalties (yes, there were two different point values in 2005! 30 points as above, and 10 points for anything else).
I'm not trying to put a positive light on this, just show that there have been worse penalties in the past.
John Hooper
10-03-2008, 15:00
If that is true, Eric, then all the more reason for FIRST to be responsive in improving the rules. Maybe I have been naive in taking the stated goals of FIRST seriously. There is no doubt that Draconian penalties for slight acccidental infractions that in no way confer an advantage to your team ruins the competition for spectators, and they certainly don't make the participants happy either ... well, except for the teams that are lucky enough to escape these penalties and lucky enough to be in alliance with teams who manage to avoid such penalties.
Maybe every team should spin a big dial after matches as well, and have huge random numbers arbitrarily added to or deducted from their scores.:)
Craig Roys
10-03-2008, 15:26
John,
The problem, as I see it, is this - where do you draw the line? The rule states that you must move counterclockwise around the track and once you completely enter a zone you cannot cross back. Consider the following two scenarios:
1) Robot A rounds a corner, crosses the line and accidentally crosses back briefly before moving on.
2) Robot B rounds a corner, crosses the line and turns to pick up a ball on the line causing them to briefly cross back before moving on.
Both robots did the same thing, but in one case it was a big advantage and in the other case it was a mistake. The refs shouldn't have to decide the intent of the robot recrossing the line - that would/could be too subjective causing more arguments.
Consider a high-sticking pentalty in hockey. It doesn't matter the intent of the player high-sticking, just that they can't do it. A large number of high-sticking pentalties are accidents, but you need to be in control of your stick. Robot drivers need to be in control of their robot.
I'm not saying I like or dislike the rule, but I understand why it is called the way it is.
Just my $0.02
Andy Baker
10-03-2008, 16:38
Our robot, and five others, were kept on the track for hours, so the long delay was both boring to the spectators and a disadvantage to our team and others.
As I saw it, the referees mercifully relaxed the "breaking the plane" rule quite a bit, which was clearly the right thing to do.
Two points here...
1. In retrospect, we should have cleared the field earlier and had those teams come back out when the work-around was put in place. We kept trying to fix it, and kept thinking that the next action was going to make things all better. I agree that this was unfair to the teams on the field. I am sorry that we did not clear the field earlier.
2. No, the referees did not relax G22 as the competition went on. We worked hard to be consistent through the entire event. Clearly, drivers got better. As the head referee, I spoke with many drivers as Saturday's matches proceeded, telling them that they were getting considerably better. The day ended with the final 2 matches being penalty-free, if I recall correctly.
From my perspective, this rookie event was great. This event prepared all of these teams to compete at a high level at their official FIRST events during the upcoming weeks.
Andy Baker
John Hooper
10-03-2008, 16:42
Craig,
I agree that sometimes "intention" rules can lead to subjective and inconsistent rulings that are also unpopular. However, they are often used in sports like soccer and football for flagrant or unsportmanlike actions, carrying a much higher penalty for the same action. I personally didn't see a robot "breaking the plane" in an attempt to get a ball. Every case appeared to be accidental. If it had been a 2 point penalty, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of many games.
is there any video of the competition?? I am interested in a team that went to the competition!
thanks
Craig Roys
10-03-2008, 17:05
If it had been a 2 point penalty, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of many games.
True except for the fact that with a 2pt penalty a team may have been more willing to take a penalty to go back to get a ball or stop a team from setting a ball on the overpass at the end. I saw a few instances where a team wanted to get a ball that rolled into the previous zone and they thought better of going to get it due to the penalty.
I don't know if there is an easy answer here - just playing a little devil's advocate :D
John Hooper
10-03-2008, 21:45
True except for the fact that with a 2pt penalty a team may have been more willing to take a penalty to go back to get a ball or stop a team from setting a ball on the overpass at the end. I saw a few instances where a team wanted to get a ball that rolled into the previous zone and they thought better of going to get it due to the penalty.
Well, if they intentionally broke the rule to get a ball or stop a team from scoring, that would be the proper 10-point penalty. Like in football, where accidentally grabbing the facemask and immediately letting go is a 5-yard penalty, but intentionally grabbing the face mask and hanging on is a personal foul, 15-yard penalty.
Anyway, many veterans of these competitions have let me know privately that FIRST does not alter rules just because they work against the entire purpose of FIRST. The important thing, apparently, is not to try to improve the rules to make the game more exciting and playable, but to grimly discipline young people into cautiously driving around a track like grannies, fearing above all making a mistake.
My bad, carry on.
LangleyCurtis
10-03-2008, 21:52
being from a rookie team that got well screwed over from both a ram that tipped an alliance mebers bot and a questionable plane breaking i think both should be swayed in the oppisite direction breaking the plane a little and getting a ten point penalty is just stupid and haveing one of your allaince's bots flipped and the other team gettign no penalty is just ridiculous but hey what are you gonna do besides give them hell in regional see you at Great Lakes
Kimberly
10-03-2008, 21:56
We kept trying to fix it, and kept thinking that the next action was going to make things all better.
LOL I live with a techie and I've heard the "I've almost got it" so many times, I know to prepare not to see him for hours! Sometimes days.
Perhaps the solution here is to let wives write the official FIRST rule for how technical problems are to be handled during competition. My suggestion would be to set a 15 minute time limit for the technical gurus to fix the problem, then the field is cleared and a one hour break begins.
Kimberly
Well, if they intentionally broke the rule to get a ball or stop a team from scoring, that would be the proper 10-point penalty. Like in football, where accidentally grabbing the facemask and immediately letting go is a 5-yard penalty, but intentionally grabbing the face mask and hanging on is a personal foul, 15-yard penalty.
Anyway, many veterans of these competitions have let me know privately that FIRST does not alter rules just because they work against the entire purpose of FIRST. The important thing, apparently, is not to try to improve the rules to make the game more exciting and playable, but to grimly discipline young people into cautiously driving around a track like grannies, fearing above all making a mistake.
My bad, carry on.
Wow, you must have gotten hit pretty hard by G22!
If you think about it, there aren't really any other ways to accomplish the GDC's task of making a game with circular movement. You could change G22 to say "robots may not cross the plane of the line" with no associated punishment, but what happens if a robot does it anyway and decides the match because of it? Do you take the win away? Do you ignore it? Ignoring it results in other teams doing it, and now you don't have your desired circular game. Taking the win away is a more severe version of what happens now. You could yellow card them and not penalize points-wise, but then you risk having teams fully DQed due to line-crossing, which is worse.
You could assign a lower point value, but once the penalty points are less than 8, the incentive is to cross the line and grab the ball because the hurdle you can get with it is worth more than the penalty you'll earn grabbing it.
The GDC wanted a game with circular motion and without massive physical defense as seen in 2006 and 2007. The only way to 'motivate' teams was to penalize those that did not go circularly.
Also, the purpose of FIRST is to expose young people to engineers and engineering. Technically, the purpose of FIRST is more the experience you had in the build season, not in the regional. Having a questionable rule (and there are always questionable rules, even in the workplace) doesn't subtract from its mission of increasing awareness of attractiveness of engineering careers.
Kimberly
10-03-2008, 22:32
Wow, you must have gotten hit pretty hard by G22!
Actually, no, not really. What I did see happen at times was a robot backing up to get around robots stopped in front of them, then getting a penalty because they were trying to keep moving rather than wait for the stopped robots to move. Our drivers eventually did learn to just wait rather than try to get around, but that's not the point. The point is that the rule seems to have some unintentional consequences, and should probably be changed, however, since this is a one-time event, what difference does it really make? I'll use all of it as a teaching moment. This one might involve teaching about rules that don't really do what they're intended to do and the futility of getting a bureaucracy to make changes that are in everybody's best interest. :D
seraphim33
10-03-2008, 22:41
I personally feel its not our place to question the rules but adapt to them because in life everything wont always go your way you just need to make adjustments to make the situation more fruitfull......when life hands you lemons make lemonade:)
Actually, no, not really. What I did see happen at times was a robot backing up to get around robots stopped in front of them, then getting a penalty because they were trying to keep moving rather than wait for the stopped robots to move. Our drivers eventually did learn to just wait rather than try to get around, but that's not the point. The point is that the rule seems to have some unintentional consequences, and should probably be changed, however, since this is a one-time event, what difference does it really make? I'll use all of it as a teaching moment. This one might involve teaching about rules that don't really do what they're intended to do and the futility of getting a bureaucracy to make changes that are in everybody's best interest. :D
Kimberly
What you are talking about was addressed in update #15. Your drivers should have known this information on Friday.
The rule has it intended consequence. Because some people think differently doesn't mean that it should be changed. Many people think the rule is just fine. Don't blame the bureaucracy.
The point is that the rule seems to have some unintentional consequences
I've thought about that, and I think the main problem is this: The only people that will ever get nailed by G22 were not intending to gain from breaking the rule. This is just a property of the rule's existence.
Why is this?
1) Accidents happen
2) The penalty value is high enough that it negates any potential gain from breaking it
Thus, nobody will ever break G22 trying to gain from it, and the only victims of G22 will be those who didn't intend to break it. This makes for quite the heartbreaker of a rule: threads full of people saying 'oh, it was only while we were turning' and 'I only ever saw people get hit by it when they were trying to turn and went over by accident'. This is, of course, because of the nature of the rule: nobody ever breaks it on purpose, because breaking it on purpose is literally pointless. I think if the point value was lowered it would become MORE controversial, because now the accidental victims would be lumped in with devious rule-breakers trying to gain a few more points. "#XXXX didn't even grab a trackball and got the same penalty as #YYYY who scored with one they STOLE from across the line :( :( :( " would be the refrain of the day.
Alan Anderson
10-03-2008, 22:54
Well, if they intentionally broke the rule...
In this game, point penalties are assigned based on actions, not on intent. We don't want refs basing their calls on assumptions about a team's intentions, do we?
...FIRST does not alter rules just because they work against the entire purpose of FIRST.
Whoa, that's excessively harsh, and totally uncalled for. The stated purpose of FIRST is To create a world where science and technology are celebrated...where young people dream of becoming science and technology heroes.A rule designed to enforce counterclockwise travel around the track doesn't even come close to going against that purpose.
Something just occurred to me. It sounds like this Kettering event was run like a regional competition, but just the robot competition part. I think that might be putting undue emphasis on the outcome of the matches. There is so much more to FIRST in general, and even the First Robotics Competition in particular, than playing the game. I fully expect that MiGHT will find the Great Lakes Regional a much more inspiring environment, even with the same game rules in effect.
Actually, no, not really. What I did see happen at times was a robot backing up to get around robots stopped in front of them, then getting a penalty because they were trying to keep moving rather than wait for the stopped robots to move. Our drivers eventually did learn to just wait rather than try to get around, but that's not the point. The point is that the rule seems to have some unintentional consequences, and should probably be changed, however, since this is a one-time event, what difference does it really make? I'll use all of it as a teaching moment. This one might involve teaching about rules that don't really do what they're intended to do and the futility of getting a bureaucracy to make changes that are in everybody's best interest. :D
Update #15 specifically describes this scenario of impeding during a line cross and states that the impeding robot has 6 seconds to get out of the way before the impeded robot is allowed to cross the line to avoid the impeding robot.
On a general note (not related to quoted reply), I see a lot of pessimism, namecalling, and sarcasm in this thread that is frowned upon in FIRST because it's not in the spirit of gracious professionalism. Please everyone keep your keyboards civil no matter how much you feel that FIRST and the referees are out to get you.
Edit: There is another thread regarding whining about G22 here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65277). It might be more constructive to move the conversation there.
Kimberly
10-03-2008, 23:15
I do understand having the 10 point penalty near the finish line, because it would prevent a robot from continuously going back and forth trying to remove the other team’s ball, but when a robot was trying to make a turn and had to back up because they misjudged the corner, they were then assessed more penalty points than they probably earned doing laps the entire match. That made absolutely no sense, especially if no other robot or a ball was near them at the time. I think the 10 point penalty should be changed to only apply to the finish line, and not to the lines near the corners, because it was very easy for teams to accidently back up over the line while trying to free their robot from a traffic jam, or while trying to re-navigate the turn. I believe one of the teams was assessed a 20 point penalty during autonomous mode for crossing back over lines! Like I said though, this is a one-time event, so rules that don't really fulfill their function isn't a big issue.
Also, in the final match, I think, the ref made a comment about “good defense” when one robot got between a ball and the other team's robot that was trying to pick it up, thus preventing the robot from capturing the ball. I thought that was not the spirit of the game and was surprised to learn it was considered a good thing, while backing up over the end lines, even if it didn’t impede scoring or another robot in any way, was a 10 point penalty.
As a general rule, I believe in questioning rules and being a catalyst for necessary change when change is possible. That's what makes a democracy better than other forms of government.
Craig Roys
11-03-2008, 08:11
I do understand having the 10 point penalty near the finish line, because it would prevent a robot from continuously going back and forth trying to remove the other team’s ball, but when a robot was trying to make a turn and had to back up because they misjudged the corner, they were then assessed more penalty points than they probably earned doing laps the entire match. That made absolutely no sense, especially if no other robot or a ball was near them at the time.
Kimberly,
Try to look at this from all possibilities and remember that it is unfair for refs to have to try to judge "intent" of a robot - they can only judge what the robot does or does not do.
Consider this: Lets say that two alliances play to a tie score. The red alliance drives all of their loops without ever crossing back over any lines. The blue alliance crosses over a line or two (accidentally or not - we can't judge the "intent" of the driver while watching the match, we can only guess what it was). I would argue that the red alliance in this case deserves the win as they were able to follow the rules as given (fair or not)
Keep in mind that the rules aren't created to hurt any teams/alliances. They are challenges that need to be overcome. Rather than get upset about the rule, the better route may be to plan how you can avoid the penalty in future matches.
GaryVoshol
11-03-2008, 08:28
Something just occurred to me. It sounds like this Kettering event was run like a regional competition, but just the robot competition part. I think that might be putting undue emphasis on the outcome of the matches.There was a reduced set of awards given out for things like robot design, spirit, imagery, etc. Obviously no Chairmans, nor no Engineering Inspiration. There was a panel of distinguished judges, I believe 6 of them, who must have had quite a job of it interviewing 23 teams for consideration of 8 or 10 awards.
However, I did notice a bit of the attitude you suggest - the robot was considered the most important thing by many of the teams. As an example, I had to try to gently convince an alliance that they not cheer when penalties were announced for their opponents. "But that means we just won." Yes, I know it did, but wait for your cheers until the score is announced.
Most likely none of these teams were any different than rookie teams you will find anywhere else this season. But since in most other regionals the rookies will be in a minority, and at all regionals they will have veteran teams to learn from, did make the tone of the Kettering event slightly different than what will be found at the Regionals.
I haven't attended an event yet this year, but I quite honestly wouldn't care if our record gets messed around a little by G22. It won't ruin the six weeks. Losing a match because of a penalty, but hurdling successfully during it, should be a huge victory.
Due to the way that FIRST works, with a new game each year, and little to no opportunity to test it before the competitions, something like this will come up each year. Last year, it was rings around the flag. It was frustrating, but it didn't ruin the experience. I have been watching these events for several years, and year after year I am in awe of how well the GDC does at creating an effective, fun, spectator-friendly game. One little thing like this dosen't ruin it.
Kimberly
11-03-2008, 09:37
Keep in mind that the rules aren't created to hurt any teams/alliances. They are challenges that need to be overcome. Rather than get upset about the rule, the better route may be to plan how you can avoid the penalty in future matches.
Absolutely. I don't have a problem with the rule because the benefit of FIRST is not in winning the competition anyway. The rules could all be whacked and it still wouldn't matter to me. I'd do it all again next year just for the benefit to the kids of the design/build phase!
As a spectator to matches though, I did think it would have been more exciting to watch if the unintentional penalties hadn't decided so many matches. Again, though, this isn't a sport like football or basketball, so if the kinks aren't all worked out of the rules, so what? The game and rules change every year and the competiton phase is only a few days, so trying to make the matches similar to sporting events in this way is unrealistic. Were the competition phase run like most sports where teams play for an entire season, the rules would be more of an issue, but for a few days? Not a problem, as far as I'm concerned.
Imagine how the team (and particularly the individual driver) felt who lost his or her team and alliance the final match by “breaking the plane”. Why in the world is that a TEN POINT penalty!
Yeah, it would stink to be that guy...(whoops :(:o )
But anyway, your guys' autonomous mode was sweeeeeet!
corcarter
12-03-2008, 14:06
On a general note (not related to quoted reply), I see a lot of pessimism, namecalling, and sarcasm in this thread that is frowned upon in FIRST because it's not in the spirit of gracious professionalism. Please everyone keep your keyboards civil no matter how much you feel that FIRST and the referees are out to get you.
BUT THE REFS ARE OUT TO GET US!!!!!!!!!!!! CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!! T_T
and the sarcasm and trash talking are all in the good spirit of competition ; ]
JaneYoung
12-03-2008, 14:13
and the sarcasm and trash talking are all in the good spirit of competition ; ]
Well no, not exactly...
read what Dr. Flowers has to say about competition in FIRST:
http://www.usfirst.org/who/content.aspx?id=36
corcarter
12-03-2008, 15:18
Well no, not exactly...
read what Dr. Flowers has to say about competition in FIRST:
http://www.usfirst.org/who/content.aspx?id=36
-.- ... people take stuff too seriously... but after all, the internet is serious buisness
anyways, without the trash talking and sarcasm, it would be boring, sure first is about learning and all that, but its also about having fun. its just a way to spice things up a bit, i mean its not like were going at each others throats...
JaneYoung
12-03-2008, 16:50
.. sure first is about learning and all that, but its also about having fun.
Well you’re right on both counts.
Being serious and having fun.
It takes a lot of hard work to become a FIRST team. A lot of team effort with everyone working together to make that happen. CD is a great place to learn about all the different aspects of being a FIRST team and what that means. It is a community that is made up of people who are members of FIRST and support FIRST.
The regionals are great places to learn about your team and about other teams. The rookie year is a very special year and is one of the biggies as far as gaining an understanding of FIRST. It’s also a total blast. The thing to try to remember is the attitude. Attitude plays a role in alliance selections, in how the team is viewed by the judges, and in how well a team works together to get through the competition.
Jane
CraigHickman
12-03-2008, 17:50
On a general note (not related to quoted reply), I see a lot of pessimism, namecalling, and sarcasm in this thread that is frowned upon in FIRST because it's not in the spirit of gracious professionalism. Please everyone keep your keyboards civil no matter how much you feel that FIRST and the referees are out to get you.
Edit: There is another thread regarding whining about G22 here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65277). It might be more constructive to move the conversation there.
I haven't seen any name calling in this thread... However, I HAVE seen logically presented arguments, points of view, and general presentation of issues with the current game. It's not as if we can assume that everything is fine and dandy, everything has issues. There hasn't been "whining" about referees being out to get students (sure, it was said once in a clear example of sarcasm...), but there has been some interesting points and observations being pointed out. Some have been corrected, others haven't been answered.
I have seen some VERY civil keyboards in this thread, and I'd like to say I'm proud of it. Name calling has come up in previous threads, but it seems to be absent here. Maybe being graciously professional doesn't just mean agreeing with a certain group's opinions? (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=65668)
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.