Another Culture Change [Archive]

Zach O

13-03-2011, 23:09

Excellent post, JVN. It's absolutely disgusting that things like this would happen in an organization such as FIRST, which preaches "Professionalism in everything we do." It's a shame that teams cannot be happy for one another - enjoy seeing your teammates winning (there's a chance 1114 was on an alliance with at least some of these teams at some point in time during the Pittsburgh regional), and hoping they would do the same for you.

I'm not in FIRST because it's easy. No one said that one day we will arrive at St. Louis and they'll have a banner waiting for us at the stadium. That we could simply build a robot, go through the season, and win Worlds. You win Worlds by innovation. You win Worlds by determination. You win Worlds by engineering a robot so solid, that it successfully completes the game. This is for the "haters" JVN refers to in his other blog post (http://blog.iamjvn.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-haters.html). I'm still confused why some teams don't come to this conclusion. Did FIRST market themselves wrong? I certainly got the memo.

Why is it an issue that some teams have the determination to build a solid robot? A regional winning robot? A World winning robot? I can't say I'm familiar about how 1114 goes about building their robots, but they build them well. So well, they're inspiring. The teams that win Worlds not only build robots that dominate the game, but they build teams that display FIRST's values. It's good to see that teams that take such abuse as this don't stoop to these teams levels. It's those teams that give FIRST it's image.

It's things like this that really lower the standards of this organization. If you don't like the way your team is run, change it. If you're not winning, you're doing something wrong. Determine WHY you're not winning, and reach the level of these great teams that are. They didn't get where they are now by booing their partners, or sleazy tactics such as attempting to injure another teams robot. They got where they are by years of work, innovation, and displaying FIRST's values.

Again, great post JVN. Good to see issues like this don't go unnoticed.

ghostmachine360

13-03-2011, 23:18

JVN, thank you for posting this; this is exactly the sentiment I've had for a while. JVN, Zack O, & rcmolloy, would you mind if I quoted some of what you've said here in a speech I'm making this weekend to the Peachtree Regional participants? These points here are so eloquently put & spot-on, I'm not sure I can put them in other words for myself.

-Kyle J.

rcmolloy

13-03-2011, 23:22

This just showed up right after I left the topic to check my PMs.

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8127/jvni.jpg

AllThatJazzzz

13-03-2011, 23:25

Wow, what a refreshing post to see. As a member of team 2614 MARS, which actually just returned from the Pittsburgh Regional, I can honestly say that my teammates and I were all thoroughly impressed with 1114. A remarkable, beautiful robot, operated by drivers with an incredible skill and prowess. My team has had their differences with Simbotics in the past but could not have been more admiring of them this past weekend. MARS students and mentors alike took many opportunities to point out what a force they were. As a matter of fact, we owe them a special sort of thanks for giving our rookie team, 3492 RoboGens, the chance to go to Worlds. Along with 1114's sister team Spartonics, it was truly a remarkable alliance--one that we were not ashamed to lose to.

I am a relatively new member of the FIRST community but it would be my sincere hope that everyone could learn to act with the Gracious Professionalism that my team has been so adamant about instilling in its members. 1114 plays to win--and they do. That's hardly a crime. MARS, for one, admires this team's reliable competitiveness. While we pride ourselves on being a 99% student-conceived, student-built, and student-run team, we simply interact with our mentors in a different way. 1114 has a different team dynamic and in today's world where winners are abhorred and mediocrity elevated, it seems that a team with a drive to win is ostracized....

BrendanB

13-03-2011, 23:28

That is beyond wrong and I feel so bad for each and everyone of 1114's members and ashamed this happened while visiting!

This is an area that came up last year with a great team who made a design that I loved and it gives all of us reasons for not saying, "that is too crazy" and it ended in a lot of harsh words. I am still in shock that this happened at a FIRST event and that it wasn't isolated and it went as far as BOOing. :(

Team 1114 is everything that I want our team to become and the level of dedication they teach at Governor Simcoe is something that I envy and respect. They have taken each season and learned from mistakes, celebrated innovation, helped the new and struggling teams, and spread FIRST in so many ways. Thank you 1114 for inspiring me!

Poor haters... they could have so much fun and do so well if they just tried.

This is why we try to keep the students from speaking negatively about other teams because this is where it leads. If ever a student said a negative comment I would either A. Say why they are wrong and point out where they got it right and if it wasn't working B. Have them ask if they need help.

Akash Rastogi

13-03-2011, 23:29

In FIRST, ignorance is NOT bliss, it is the most detrimental thing that can happen to a team. Veterans and rookies alike, love to hate on the big dogs before learning about what a team is really all about.

Mentors AND students, especially those who have a lot of influence in their area, should make sure that those around them are well educated about each and every team before things like this escalate into more severe situations.

Snide remarks from upperclassmen and mentors piss me off the most. They should know better.

I urge everyone at their respective regional to educate the people around you. Show them what the benefits of having an elite team as your friend can be, I know that I have gained A LOT from the giants I look up to.

Make this competition about winning, not whining. Make it about learning about others, not hating on them.

Michael Corsetto

13-03-2011, 23:39

John,

This really is OUR culture. It's YOUR culture, it's MY culture.

I can speak only for myself, but MY culture has been shifting dramatically since I joined the program as a freshman in high school 8 years ago. I remember having a pride about our "zero mentor input robots." I remember being one of the crowd actively boo-ing 254 in the finals of the 2005 SVR competition. I remember all the bitterness walking in the pits at the Championship in 04 through 07, seeing teams sponsored by Ford, Motorola, GM, etc. While I have had a few negative experiences with power house teams like these (nobody is perfect), I can honestly say 99.9% of this bitterness was born out of jealousy. Jealousy of the nice machining, cool pits, and blue banners. Jealousy about stuff that doesn't even matter! It's all about inspiring the kids here people! (And I get inspired in the process :))

Flash forward to 2011. Serving on the Davis Regional Planning Committee has given me perspective into the bigger picture of what FIRST does. Through asking "powerhouse" teams questions about their robots and team structure, I've found that they are meant to be a resource and friend rather than rival and enemy.

In 2010, Karthik took the time to answer in-depth questions I had regarding their unstoppable 2008 robot. These answers were key to the success of 1678's kicking mechanism that year. I have also used many of the 1114 team structure documents on their website to re-structure the team I work with here in Davis.

I've also had the opportunity to visit the 254 shop a few times. Most recently, I brought team 1678 to NASA Ames (a 2 hour drive!) to practice on their competition field the Sunday before ship. We got to do a lot of practice, which was awesome, but it was so much more than that. I came in telling the kids (who had never seen a 254 bot in person), "Alright guys, 254 is going to have an awesome robot. Learn as much as you can. See how they build. Watch how they drive. How they wire. How they do everything."

Being able to set the tone for the day allowed my students to get exponentially more out of the experience than just a jealous glare at an incredible machine. We were encouraged to look at the bot in-depth and ask questions. And I did. My kids did. It was awesome! Just my humble attempt at shifting the FIRST culture I guess...

This is kind of a tangent, but they also fed us like no other! So much food, and we were encouraged to eat as much as we could! Thanks 254!

Long post, I know, but to sum it all up, power house teams are a resource, not an enemy.

Maybe FIRST should take time at the competition to celebrate the awesome things in team's chairmans award submissions? If I knew half the things these powerhouse team's did for others, completely unrelated to their dominant competition robot, I'd have a much harder time jumping to vilifying them.

-Mike

J93Wagner

13-03-2011, 23:39

Your blog post was very thought provoking. Now I need to think and reflect on it some more...

ouellet348

13-03-2011, 23:45

I'm horrified that any FIRST team would have behavior like that, and I express my apologies to 1114 that they had to bear that.

Winning may create jealousy but this is not the way to act. FIRST isn't about who wins and loses, it isn't even about the robots.

I spent three days at the WPI regional helping two inner city teams be able to pass inspection. These teams were made up of mostly poor students from bad areas. And yet they cheered just as loud as the world champion team in attendance. These teams were lucky to get their robots on the field, and neither managed to have a working arm or deployment. But I saw that same inspiration in their eyes. Talking with another volunteer I heard them say that they consider them among the best teams there, and I was confused. They went on to say that the teams come from some of the worst schools in the state, and that they receive almost no funding, but that their students are in the top ten percent for the state's test scores. They consistently have students all go on to college, some even to MIT. One student told me about his national scale winning science fair project as we worked on the robot. That is what FIRST is about to me. The inspiration that brings even those in the worst conditions onto a level where they can change the world.

The competition and the robots are tools towards a goal, means toward an end. The goal is to inspire. 1114 should inspire the teams towards greatness and towards that level of competition and excellence. The goal of FIRST isn't to have teams dominate with fantastic machines, it is a preference for sure, but the real goal is to show students what they are capable of, what we all are capable of, and to drive them towards a better future with a gracious heart.

To all teams, remember that FIRST is about how we act, who we are, and what we will become, and what you will go on to do. To act that way is not a reflection of what anyone should aspire to.

Arefin Bari

13-03-2011, 23:57

John, it took a while to read through your blog; I read it over several times. I am truly disgusted by how some reacted towards Team 1114. This is simply ignorance.

I have encountered the same situation with a mentor this past weekend where I was told by him that team 233's students don't do a thing and it just seemed all engineer built. I simply asked him to watch the Pink team closely throughout the weekend. His view on the Pink team changed completely at the end.

I suppose until you see it for yourself, it is hard to believe what these students are capable of.

For some, the case is to jump to a conclusion right away... simply known as an ignorant. I wish some would take their time to just stop by one of the elite team's pit just for 15 minutes and ask, "How do you do this?"

... Oh, and just in case any of those people who put any of these elite teams down, why don't you try to asking them to share their ideas and designs with you? You will be surprised by how much help you will get from them.

emekablue

13-03-2011, 23:58

John-

I was reading your blog and I just have to say I'm generally disappointed in many things going on. Sure, I've seen a little team-bashing here and there due to the competitive spirit, but targeting one team like that is crossing the line. It's almost a form of bullying or even harassment, which FIRST, I think, strives to prevent. I'm going to talk with the team before embarking to our regional to make sure our team at least preserves the Gracious spirit of FIRST.

Eunice

rutzman

13-03-2011, 23:58

Hello Everyone,
I've been thinking about this for a long time. I heard some horrible, interesting stories from the Pittsburgh regional this past weekend which helped solidify my thoughts.

I managed to put these thoughts into words here:
http://blog.iamjvn.com/2011/03/another-culture-change.html

I hope you'll take a minute to read, reflect, and hopefully join me in helping to shift OUR culture.

-John
I apologize if I restate anything posted before me; I've been working on this post since the thread started.

The more times I read your post, the more sickened I feel.
My first reaction was shock- everything I have seen, heard, and read about the Simbots has been proof of the quality organization that they run and the professionalism of their students and mentors. The help they provide to the teams they work with is phenomenal, and watching them work with 3492 in the pits next to ours during eliminations was a fantastic sight. That anyone would treat any other FIRST team in such a manner, especially a team of such upstanding reputation, is appalling.

That shock quickly subsided- I hadn't witnessed the occurrences specifically listed in your blog, but I had seen similar events over the course of the regional. The lack of professionalism shown by a handful of people in Pittsburgh was disgusting.

On behalf of my team: If 1114 chooses to return to Pittsburgh again in the future, they will have a friend in 2614-Team MARS.

EDIT:
Please note: We are MARS. We are 2614. We wear white and red. We are often confused with another team with a similar number. This has caused us numerous issues in the past in interactions with inspectors, field crew, awards presentations, and other teams at multiple events. We do not tolerate, condone, or support any actions anywhere close to the behavior presented towards 1114 this weekend.

Colin P

14-03-2011, 00:04

The Robowranglers consistently put out great robots, and more importantly, great students. Anyone who falls under the impression that powerhouse teams have mentor-built robots needs only to look at the students for their answer.

I haven't been in FIRST for a very long time, but it's pretty easy to notice who's doing the work on a robot. 148, 1114, 217 are all teams that fall under criticism for having mentor built robots, but I have NEVER seen a mentor from any of these teams even touch the robots at competition. Meanwhile, many "midrange" veteran teams have packs of mentors taking care of everything. It's easy to point fingers and try to draw attention away from yourself. I'll admit, I once did this as a student.

I'm now trying to build my team with a stricter set of values. FIRST isn't about acting kindly to everyone in an attempt to be a gracious professional. There shouldn't be any acting involved. We know we aren't going to be the best team out there, but we try to do our best. We applaud those who also do the best they can, especially if their best is better than ours.
Teams need to stop worrying about who's doing what on other teams and concentrate on doing the best they can with what they have and keeping the students in charge and in line.

Lil' Lavery

14-03-2011, 00:04

The best, and only surefire (IMO), solution to change the culture to universally accept and celebrate teams like 1114 is to make it so the teams who can't compete with 1114 and don't have the caliber of design process of 1114 the minority rather than the majority. When 1114 is the norm, rather than the elite, it will be a lot harder to not appreciate what 1114 accomplishes.

How do we achieve such a lofty goal? I have no idea. I started to ramble about it, but decided it's probably wiser to leave it open ended.

Here at DAWGMA, an alumnus used to joke that 1712 has a little 71 in us. While it was more a play on numbers than anything, I hope one day that every team has more "FRC nerds" on it where they can appreciate great teams when they see them. And for it to be an honest appreciate, not jealousy or contempt.

e; To be fair. I still hate the New York Yankees and always will. Perhaps I'm just biased, but I do think this challenge will be awfully hard to solve.

Steve W

14-03-2011, 00:06

1114 is a powerhouse. So are some of the other teams around the country. They did not become that way by chance. Winning is important and to win they must do a lot of things right.

Building a good robot. This is important if you want to win. 1114 does that regularly. I know because the teams that I have been associated with competed with them every year. I also know that they inspired the kids on our teams to be better to try and beat them. This is a good thing. A goal always brings out the best in us all.

Having good contacts. This is an area that 1114 has also excelled. The mentors, Engineers, teachers and parents support their team with time, resources and money. They also have good bonds with other FIRST teams. All of this is good.

Good strategy. If some of the other teams in FIRST ever got the chance to listen in with their team and mentors you would be amazed. From the moment the game is announced they start at it and don't quit till after Championships. Constantly adapting as the weeks go on to make themselves be the best they can be. This also is good.

Building a good team. I am not talking about the robot but about TEAM. This includes EVERY student, mentor, teacher, sponsor and parent that wishes to be involved. Every person has a responsibility and they fulfill it. As each member does their part the team is strengthened. This again is good.

Willing to share. Well maybe not all of their secrets right away but they will let you see and learn from the robot after the competition starts. What teams have learned and taken back to their shops in invaluable. They also share their resources , both parts and manpower to help other teams before season ends and at each competition they attend. I personally have used them when I am going around the pits and see teams in need of help. They are one of the first teams that I ask for assistance from.

I guess what I am trying to say is that 1114 is one of the great stories of FIRST. Built on FIRST principles and excelling with them shows that FIRST does work.

Does it bother me that they continually win? You bet it does. Not because they win but because I haven't come up with a way to beat them. I continually strive to be my best and I wish others would do the same. People and teams never become better by lowering standards and tearing down others around them. They become better by reaching for goals out of their reach and eventually attaining them then setting new goals. This is what 1114 does.

JVN thanks for starting this thread. Your insight is always beneficial. It is not easy to say what must be said but I believe that you have done so a lot better than many could. People should also take note that 1114 is not the only team that I have heard things like this about. Funny thing is that when I have dealt with some of these other teams I find the same model and excellence that I see in 1114. Maybe we can start a new trend in FIRST where excellence is applauded instead of trying to tear it down.

EricH

14-03-2011, 00:17

When someone posts on CD with the type of attitude towards a team that was reported as shown to 1114, I stand with the team. More often than not, there is no grounds for the accusation of being mentor-built. More often than not, it isn't the first time that the team has had to defend themselves against that. Usually, the person doing the original post collects a few negative reputation clicks and backs off their stance a *bit*. Or they actually take the time to meet with the team, and do a U-turn. (Same goes for other types of baseless accusations.)

But doing it to their face and consistently? That is taking that attitude to a new low. Whoever was doing this should be ashamed of themselves. Not for having an opinion, but for their chosen method of expressing it. If you want to express that type of opinion, be professional and go to them and express it. Let them explain their methods. You have the option to adopt those methods or not.

FIRST has not specified that student-built teams are better than mentor-built teams. The only thing saying that is pride/jealousy among certain individuals. Maybe they should take that pride/jealousy and instead of trying to beat X powerhouse, they should try to be that powerhouse. Raise the level of competition, and raise the professionalism level at the same time--sounds like a win-win.

ayeckley

14-03-2011, 00:17

Trying to Help

14-03-2011, 00:21

JVN and others -

It's not excusable and it can, maybe, be fixed with determination and information like Michael C. spoke about. I hope. Team 1114 has helped our team with their excellent information on their website. Their ability to help and lead should never be denigrated.

Sometimes, despite all that you do as a mentor, it might not be enough. A case in point: after GSR, a friend of mine who isn't a FIRST mentor, mentioned that one of her daughter's friends had commented on how rude students from my team had been at GSR. I was shocked to hear that, let me tell you! We had gone over and over again about our expectations for behavior at any team event, never mind a competition. We talked about it quite a bit and I think I may have an inkling as to what went on. We never competed against this other student's team, so I'm thinking that it's probably a case of confusing one team with another. (And if anyone on CD can confirm this behavior rumor and give me details, please pass them along in a PM.)

BUT if I find out that it definitely was one of our students, there will be serious consequences even if it's an "explainable" case. Last year, we had a student who was spoken to by a mentor for just this sort of issue. After a second non-GP incident, he was asked reconsider his priorities and when he could come up with a plan for meeting our expectations, then we'd be happy to talk with him about his place in the team. Unfortunately, we haven't seen him since.

I know we've tried to emulate and teach a sense of fairness, helpfulness and the desire to learn from other teams. I know that we're all human and that we've probably missed some perfect teaching moments at our competition. All we can do is keep trying. I know I will.

Lil' Lavery

14-03-2011, 00:29

Hold on everyone - did anyone *actually at Pittsburgh* witness the things reported? I would hate for the Pittsburgh Regional to be unjustly associated with this behavior. I can't address the other allegations, but I was in the stands during the awards ceremonies and didn't notice any booing. Usually when something inappropriate like that happens the crowd responds to the "boo-er" in an overwhelming fashion.

I'm not associated with 1114 so I wouldn't have been the target of these things, but I didn't sense any sort of anti-Canada or anti-1114 vibe this weekend (unless you count statements like "1114 is going to be impossible to beat"). I have great respect for JVN, but something just doesn't sound right to this story - I'm skeptical.

If anyone has any information that someone from 2252 is associated with these allegations please PM me so I can take immediate corrective action.

I was not at Pittsburgh nor do I know the teams in question, so I cannot actually attest to the validity of the claim.

However, I do know, with 100% certainty, that there have been similar incidents towards 1114 at the Pittsburgh regional (and other events) before. And that the team in question then, who did not attend Pittsburgh this year, is generally held in high regard by most of FRC. And that team took similar, though far less severe, actions against my team at a later event that year.

Whether or not this issue happened at Pittsburgh this year is almost irrelevant to the greater issue at hand. No, we shouldn't drag the Pittsburgh regionals name through the mud if this isn't true. But the greater point is almost irrelevant, as we all know the root problem exists and should be rectified.

rsisk

14-03-2011, 00:34

On behalf of team 2493, we are inspired to try harder to emulate teams like 1114, 148, 1538, 399, 254, 71, 33, 233, 1515, 968, and many many more teams we have met that exemplify the value of FIRST. We make every attempt to learn how such teams become great and do our best to follow in their steps, and push the envelope even further.

Obviously we have some work to do to help others see the benefit of all of us rowing in the same direction.

You can count on us as part of Operation: Change The Culture.

Karthik

14-03-2011, 00:37

Thanks to everyone who has expressed their support in this thread and elsewhere via social media. It's always nice to be reminded that there are still lots of people who get it.

Unfortunately the issues that JVN described in his blog aren't new. 1114 has been dealing with these sorts of comments for years. Sometimes they become very public in the case of things like booing, but more often than not they happen when people are hidden behind (or believe they're hidden) a cloak of anonymity. It's not only 1114 who has to deal with this. Over the years, great teams like 47, 67, 71, 111, 148, 217, 233, 254, 469, 2056 among many many others have been needlessly bashed. Most do it privately, but others do it publicly. Regardless, it's not cool.

So how do we stop it? We cannot tolerate it. If you see/hear someone acting this way, call them out on it. Don't just laugh awkwardly and ignore it, squash it. If we passively ignore this type of behavior, it becomes acceptable. Too often people just say "oh, you should take it as a compliment, it means you're good." I'm sorry, but we can do better than that. We need to take a stand at teams who are doing this, directly.

That shock quickly subsided- I hadn't witnessed the occurrences specifically listed in your blog, but I had seen similar events over the course of the regional. The lack of professionalism shown by a handful of people in Pittsburgh was disgusting.

What were these similar events?

Karthik

14-03-2011, 00:42

Hold on everyone - did anyone *actually at Pittsburgh* witness the things reported? I would hate for the Pittsburgh Regional to be unjustly associated with this behavior. I can't address the other allegations, but I was in the stands during the awards ceremonies and didn't notice any booing. Usually when something inappropriate like that happens the crowd responds to the "boo-er" in an overwhelming fashion.

I'm not associated with 1114 so I wouldn't have been the target of these things, but I didn't sense any sort of anti-Canada or anti-1114 vibe this weekend (unless you count statements like "1114 is going to be impossible to beat"). I have great respect for JVN, but something just doesn't sound right to this story - I'm skeptical.

If anyone has any information that someone from 2252 is associated with these allegations please PM me so I can take immediate corrective action.

Yes, I was actually at Pittsburgh and I did witness some of the claims. Others were witnessed by the judges and other event volunteers, who immediately brought them to our team's attention. In no way is this behavior reflective of the Pittsburgh regional, just a bunch of jerks who were in attendance at the Pittsburgh regional. All the volunteers at this event treated us impeccably.

rutzman

14-03-2011, 00:42

What were these similar events?

Booing when 1114 was introduced before a match. It was mostly drowned out by the crowd, and I probably would not have noticed if it hadn't come from a group directly behind me.

Chris is me

14-03-2011, 00:44

Whoever was doing this should be ashamed of themselves. Not for having an opinion, but for their chosen method of expressing it. If you want to express that type of opinion, be professional and go to them and express it. Let them explain their methods. You have the option to adopt those methods or not.

No, that isn't the issue at all. As JVN pointed out in his blog post, the problem isn't just people being jerks to 1114's face. That itself is a problem, but it's not suddenly okay if you whisper it behind their back instead of to their face. And there are a LOT more people that hold that belief, but aren't stupid enough to show it.

The problem is jealousy, whining, and a lack of respect and appreciation for greatness.

EricH

14-03-2011, 00:48

No, that isn't the issue at all. As JVN pointed out in his blog post, the problem isn't just people being jerks to 1114's face. That itself is a problem, but it's not suddenly okay if you whisper it behind their back instead of to their face. And there are a LOT more people that hold that belief, but aren't stupid enough to show it.I never said that being jerks behind their back was OK. I said that maybe holders of that opinion should actually talk to 1114 and give them a chance to respond. That's a MUCH better way than harassing them, booing them, or shoving them out of the way.

Basel A

14-03-2011, 00:51

No, that isn't the issue at all. As JVN pointed out in his blog post, the problem isn't just people being jerks to 1114's face. That itself is a problem, but it's not suddenly okay if you whisper it behind their back instead of to their face. And there are a LOT more people that hold that belief, but aren't stupid enough to show it.

The problem is jealousy, whining, and a lack of respect and appreciation for greatness.

Eric suggests that keeping opinions to oneself or publicly announcing them, which you seem to think are both problems, isn't a good idea. He also suggests that obtaining the truth from the team in question, which would imply a respect for that team (perhaps not necessarily its possible greatness), is a better way to go about expressing that opinion.

I don't see a disagreement.

sammyjalex

14-03-2011, 01:04

I don't understand how to some degree this becomes an argument of our engineering standards or of how competitively we design and build. Nor do I understand how this conversation to come to being about ignorance or if you build your robot this way or that. I see this as the opening of a concern that we all must address. I think placing this conversation in the context of competition actually hurts our progress. We need to admire and appreciate the accomplishments of the peers in our communities. We cannot see it as something to defeat. Isn't that how we get to this point, because somehow or another, a student begins to think that it isn't about what they learn, or the way they learn, but about who can build the best robot on a norm-based scale or criterion-based? Can we not approach this issue and say why should comparison have such a bearing. Yes, it is the hurtful behavior of a group of students, or perhaps a team, but is it only that? Can we also look at the way that we approach this dialogue of who's winning?

Ian Curtis

14-03-2011, 01:12

Has any team ever won a regional and not experienced this in some fashion? Most of us are nowhere near the levels that 148, 1114, 254, 111, etc. do. However, when 1276 won BAE in 2006 we experienced snide remarks (half a dozen), which is half a dozen more than I was expecting. They were all along the lines of "mentor built robot, students don't know anything." I have heard similar murmurs for pretty much every competitive team I know of in the Northeast.

FWIW, I think some of those comments against 1114 should get the offenders kicked out of the event. Perhaps 1114 should move their robot through the pits by yelling, "Team build robot coming through!" ? :cool:

sanddrag

14-03-2011, 01:28

This is nothing new. I remember it all the way back to 2003 with Team 60. If it doesn't look like it was hacked together from scrap and place near the bottom of the ranks, people assume the students didn't build it. I remember when I was in middle school, and built a Pinewood Derby car with a built-in battery and LED headlights and taillights. I overheard the parent judges, and was denied an award because "this one must have been built by his father." I think it's rather insulting to the bright students out there to assume students are not capable of higher level work. Do not be so quick to judge how a team works unless you've been in their shop for hours on end.

I really like this quote Excellence means we need to do everything we can as a team to find the best possible solution to this problem by following the best process possible...and to that I'd like to add "...using any and all resources and people available."

You don't cut it with a hacksaw if you have a waterjet. You don't epoxy it if you have a welder. You don't beat it over the edge of a table if you have a press brake. You don't let your experienced mentors sit on the sidelines while the students fool around without direction.

You never want to look back and say "we could have done better." If your engineers are not helping your students, I bet one of them says this at the end of the year.

Suppose an engineer has an idea that as shown by an engineering process, provides a competitive advantage over a student's idea. Should the engineer keep his mouth shut and let the student continue down a failed path? No.

Will student learning be achieved? Perhaps, but what will the student have learned? How to fail...

The engineer should provide the guidance to show the student why a certain idea is better than another, with the engineering basis or calculation to support the claim. This is inspiration. This is teamwork. Has student learning been achieved? Yes, to a greater extent than if the student had failed. They are now ready to do things the right way, as opposed to only having learned what they've done wrong.

Any adult can open a door. Some can give direction. A few can give leadership. These are the true mentors. This is where true success comes from.

Kimmeh

14-03-2011, 03:19

I'm completely disgusted to find out that this happens. I never in my wildest dreams would dare to say a robot is mentor built. We've had a year where the mentors have done more than probably should have, and quite frankly, it didn't help us much. Next year, we had more student involvement and incidentally, we did better from a competitive standpoint.

I also find it sad that numerous teams, especially the powerhouses, have their build season/methods completely transparent and are still accused of, well almost anything you can think to accuse them of. Personally, JVN's build journal, RUSH's rookie toolkit, and all of the NEMO papers out there were invaluable to another mentor and myself when we took lead over a team. The FIRST community is a much better place because they share what works, and doesn't work for them. To then turn around and have teams call them out on it? I'm floored.

So how do we stop it? We cannot tolerate it. If you see/hear someone acting this way, call them out on it. Don't just laugh awkwardly and ignore it, squash it. If we passively ignore this type of behavior, it becomes acceptable. Too often people just say "oh, you should take it as a compliment, it means you're good." I'm sorry, but we can do better than that. We need to take a stand at teams who are doing this, directly.

Karthik brought up the point that I wanted to make. We've brought it to light now, how do we stop it? Even more so, how do we do it positively? Negatively calling a person out causes resentment, which will only fuel them. IMO, one of the best places to start is talking to them. Ask them how they reached their judgment. Make them back up their argument. But at the same time, don't be rude about it either. Be prepared to give your own evidence to counter theirs. It never hurts to remind them that FIRST gives students a chance to work with professionals from "The Real World". Not using them as the valuable resources they are can do more harm then good.

Potential dialogue:
"Team #### sucks! Totally mentor built!"
"Really? What makes you say that?"
"*Insert reason here*"
"Do you know this first hand? You're probably taking away credit from the students. Have you talked to the team about their design? No? Let's go talk to them."

In closing, I'm reminded of one of my mother's favorite phrases: "If it's not nice, don't say it."

Techhexium

14-03-2011, 03:41

This topic has reminded me about Woodie Flowers back at the kickoff. He talked about rational passion at the end of his speech.

Rational passion is passion that is based on things that you really understand, not what some pundit tells you what to think. In the last few years, rational passion has been swamped by irrational passion. Please, help us bring back some rational passion.

Source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvdr-jZbHsk)

LightWaves1636

14-03-2011, 04:30

LOVED the blog entry JVN!

and just in time too(I'm going to include it in our logistics meeting before we roll out for our regional this week), I've been preaching to my students that the really good teams help raise the bar to help inspire teams like us to work and learn how to jump higher. It really made me fumid when one my old students from an old team before I moved messaged me that he was upset that a powerhouse team was showing to their regional, I felt like I failed as a mentor that he didn't remember what makes the team more than a "Robotics Team" but a "FIRST Robotics Team".

The reason I'm still in FIRST as a volunteer and mentor is because it's simply put, the culture.

MagiChau

14-03-2011, 04:53

Kind of saddened to know people would dislike a team so much to find no admiration of their ability to create a good robot and because of their higher availability of resources. My team knows its going to be tough at West Michigan with teams like 27, 67, 1718, and 1918 there but I would rather lose in the quarter-finals or semifinals if we get in eliminations to a powerhouse than win the competition never facing one. We had a great match as the 8th alliance in Galileo last year against the Thunder Chickens with a photo-finish pushing match.

Tom Line

14-03-2011, 05:47

Tom Ore

14-03-2011, 06:16

How do we stop this? Mentors can guide students to have a good attitude. For example, at KC this past week, I was chatting with a couple of students from a top team and I mentioned that there were quite a few really top robots competing. The students singled out one particular team and said that this other top team copied their designs. The conversation was in danger of going seriously negative - I tired to steer the conversation in a positive direction. I said that we love it when someone copies our designs - that's the highest form of flattery - they like your design enough to use it on their robot. I told the story of 2177 from last year. 2177 saw our hanger design on video and they made a version of it for their robot. When we saw their hanger at 10,000 lakes we were totally thrilled about it. We ended up partnering with 2177 in the eliminations.

My question then is - can mentors guide other mentors to have a good attitude?

Chris Hibner

14-03-2011, 07:47

It really saddens me to see this happen. I've worked with 1114 many times in the past as allies and as foes and they are a great team with a top notch structure.

It is apparent to me now that I am in the vast minority that I love to see engineering excellence be rewarded. There's nothing I like more than to see great robots win. Last year it took me about 3 hours to break out of my funk when 469 lost on Einstein (no offense to the winning alliance, I just grew attached to 469 with their creative design). I was the biggest WildStang fan this past weekend while watching the Wisconsin webcast, and if you do some searching you'll find out that I was (and still am) one of the biggest team 71 fans around.

It's natural to feel a little jealosy at times, but how you use that is what separates the successful from the pack. You can whine and blame and cry "woe is me", or you can channel that into a passion for improving and beating them on the field. People need to realize that they DO have the power to beat these teams by improving YOUR team rather than by tearing down those above. It just takes a lot less effort to attempt to destroy what's above you than to try and climb the hill.

GaryVoshol

14-03-2011, 08:13

One line from JVN's blog struck me: "If you think that about our team, you don't know our team."

That has been my experience in the past. Sure, I envied the top powerhouse teams - I think most people do. Yet it was envy tinged with awe. How could they do all the things they accomplished?

When you get to know teams, you realize how they came to the position they have. It's not from luck, from the good fortune of having everything handed to them on a silver platter. Teams work hard to get their sponsors, their equipment, their resources. I got to know Karthik about 5 years ago, when there was controversy about the "twins/triplets" robots. When he explained their motives and what the cooperation between the teams had accomplished, it made sense. It wasn't something "unfair" as many people had claimed; it was just another way of inspiring students.

I also know how isolated incidents can lead to bad impressions of a team. Something a team did many years ago struck me as being terribly wrong. I held bad feelings for that team for a long time; if they won an award I remembered back to that incident. It was only a year or two ago that I got to know the team mentors better, and realized that the team didn't have a bad attitude. Maybe it's time to talk to them again this year, and resolve things that started for me in 2006. Maybe people that have current issues with teams shouldn't let them fester until they break open in anger and insults.

Regarding the April Fool's joke last year, we had no idea the crowd would react that way. We thought it would cause the team to sweat for a couple of minutes, and then we'd all share a good laugh, as had happened with other pranks in prior years. Had we known the reaction would be so negative against the team we would never have done it. I immediately went to the team and apologized, and if I never apologized publicly please accept this post as that apology.

Taylor

14-03-2011, 09:06

It wasn't that long ago - 2008? when I was one of these haters. I certainly wasn't public or overly vocal about it, but I was a maker of snide comments to those who I thought had a similar worldview. Essentially it boiled down to "why are all these grownups playing at a high-school game? Get out of the way and let the kids have a chance!"
Somewhere along the way, my perspective got changed. I think it was by 1024. I knew several of the adults on that team; I knew a couple of the students. I knew they were "in it for the right reasons" and I knew their robot that year was a thing of beauty - and they had the Midas touch with everything but Einstein. They weren't some mysterious team in a mysterious land with a NASA or GM in their backyard - they were on the northeast side of the town I lived.
Around that time, I learned to stop hating and start appreciating. Learn how they do it, and in time, do it better.
The machines in 2008 were absolutely astonishing and inspirational. They opened my eyes to what was possible. 1024, 45, 931, 148, 1114, 217 - thank you all for showing me how elegant a TEAM-built robot could be.
2007 was a dark period for me personally in the FIRST world. I felt "outside the loop" - I felt like FRC was a political game and we weren't invited to the party. My opinion on FIRST soured that year - partially because our robot frankly inhaled audibly and wasn't too inspirational; but mostly because of the Us vs. Them mentality we harbored.
We are very fortunate to live in Indiana, the home of Andy and Mark and Chris and Chris and Chris and Flo and Wayne and Jeff and Scott and Tim and Melodie and Brant and Joe and Josh and scores of other people who do things well and do things right. Despite my private misgivings, these people still welcomed us and are now counted among my friends.

Perhaps we're not looking through the right lens. We've always equated FIRST to sports - to me, the greats aren't athletes. They're rock stars. And nobody hates Joe Perry or Jimmy Page or Jimi Hendrix because they play the guitar well. These folks are idolized and revered - and everybody knows they got to where they are through hard work and a bit of talent.

Brandon Holley

14-03-2011, 09:25

Plenty has been said in this thread already so I'll keep it brief.

1114 et al, find comfort in knowing many MANY teams and people support your team and the robots you create. Anyone who sees an 1114 machine compete and finds nothing inspirational about it is lying to themselves.

There are 2 ways to level the competition, one is to bring the floor up, and one is to bring the ceiling down. Plain and simple, any one striving to bring the ceiling down has completely missed the message of FIRST, inspiration, problem solving and engineering.

-Brando

pfreivald

14-03-2011, 09:29

I struggle with community members who think FIRST is 'elitist' becase there is a sharp divide between teams that have lots and lots of resources and teams that do not. We face an additional challenge of being extremely rural -- as in, 20 miles from the nearest stoplight -- and our town is so small that we are limited to two fundraisers a year (so as to not take opportunities from other extracurricular activities).

What I usually say when people start hating on the powerhouse teams is something like this:

"We can be like them. There are things they do better than we do, and how terrible would it be to try to 'level the playing field' by restricting them. They build awesome robots -- we can do that, too. They have more mentors -- we can recruit more. They have more money -- we are limited in that regard, but so what? We seeded higher than the Thunder Chickens at FLR last year, and shared a blue banner with them when *we* chose *them* for our alliance.

We have up years and down years. Usually we're middle of the pack. But every year our capabilities get better, our aspirations higher, and our drive stronger. This happens BECAUSE of teams like 217, 1114, 254 -- they are INSPIRATIONAL powerhouses who show the rest of us what true excellence really is, and they give us something to shoot for."

It usually is NOT the reaction most people are expecting -- they expect me to confide in them how upsetting the inherent unfairness is. I hope some of them listen to what I have to say!

I do my best to instill this attitude in my team members as well. Jealousy is a wasted emotion, and can easily be replaced with inspiration from the EXACT SAME EVENTS. Same situation, different response = win for everyone.

----------------

Oh, and on student-vs-mentor built robots: We have always had a mix of the two, with mentors guiding and working with students to create the best product we can with the resources available. Our engineering decisions are ultimately made by the students, but are heavily informed by the engineers, and we do our best to make sure that students understand what the tradeoffs are in any decisions they make.

Our mentors work on some things with students; our students work on some things themselves. I think this is likely true on every team, whether they think so or not.

...but one of the things I see as an important aspect of FIRST, a part of the culture we hope to change, is getting more adults involved in the school. FIRST is, in my experience, the ONLY program that pulls in adults who are not simply helping out some activity that their child is involved with. Mentor involvement is essential to bringing more adults into our schools, so that they can inspire science and technology in kids.

So I would HOPE that robots are a collaboration between mentors and students, with the focus on the entire team doing the best they can AS A TEAM to create an excellent, competitive robot.

/ramble

wendymom

14-03-2011, 09:34

Dear 1114:

Please come to the Florida Regional next year. We will embrace you, feed you, entertain you and learn from you. Then we will be honored to go out and be crushed by you. (we are used to it, we play against 233, 179, 1251 every year)

Love,
Exploding Bacon

fox46

14-03-2011, 09:48

dodar

14-03-2011, 09:55

IndySam

14-03-2011, 09:56

I won't go into what has already been said in this thread but I would like add that once you get to know these powerhouse teams you soon learn that they want to help elevated every other team to be as good as they are.

I think the important part of JVN's blog is the need for culture change. We need to all commit that when we hear these kinds of things and see those kind of actions that we will take our own action to educated the offenders. Lets change their minds by kindly explaining to them how wrong they are and take them by the hand to meet some of these fantastic mentors and students.

ks_mumupsi

14-03-2011, 10:02

Again, as many have said here this is what its all about. There is a cultural shift that FIRST needs and it needs to go back to being cooperative and not so competitive.

I will make one point though. A lot of this responsibility lies on the mentors now and the FIRST alums who are mentors and volunteers. We need to bring this back to the students of our teams.

We need to emphasize and reiterate Gracious Professionalism, not only in speech but also in our actions. Because as has been said time and again, actions speak louder than words...

I hope some of the students reading this post heed to this, not only for FIRST but also for other aspects of their lives.

Lil' Lavery

14-03-2011, 10:07

Joe G.

14-03-2011, 10:08

To anyone who accuses teams of this, I pose a simple challenge.

On practice day, stand by the field exit location. Listen to what the student drivers of the "mentor built" robots are talking about, after testing out their machines. I bet you they're talking about what went wrong. I bet you they're talking about ways to improve. I bet you they're using technical words that you may not know the meaning of.

I haven't been wrong yet.

Andy Baker

14-03-2011, 10:16

This starts with the mentors. It's up to us to stamp it out. It's up to us to make it right.

How do we stop this? Mentors can guide students to have a good attitude. For example...

First of all, I agree that these actions against 1114 (and other teams) does need to be pointed out and these ignorant and negative attitudes need to be confronted.

Here is another example:

I recall inspecting a team a few years ago. This team was from a small town where a strong, well-respected FRC team was located. In the pit, the team had two mentors and about four students focused on this conversation.

I started off the inspection process by asking them where they were from. They told me, and then talked about the other team in their area. As they talked about this other team, they said very accusatory things, claiming that this other team cheated by building their robot before the build season started, and they said that the team also had no students work on the robot at all. My first reaction was to try to disarm the situation, by saying that teams often make development robots in the fall, and then build a competition robot during the season. However, this seemed to get the lead mentor more fired up, raising his voice and increasing his claims.

At that time, I asked the two mentors to step out of the pit, away from the kids. What I wanted to tell them, I did not want the kids to hear. I found myself essentially scolding the mentors, so I did not want their students to see that. I asked them if they saw these rules being broken first hand. I asked them if they were 100% sure if no kids touched the robot. Then, I told them that I know this team well enough that neither of their claims are true. I knew about their team's off-season development, and I knew that students were deeply involved in all aspects. Then, I told them that their false claims were not only dangerous to the other team they are blaming, but also very dangerous to the students on their own team, in their own pit. I told them that they cannot make these false claims, and they need to explain what I said to their students who have heard them make these claims today and in the past.

I walked away, disgusted. About an hour later, I came back to the pit, and inspected the robot by only talking to the kids. The kids were very happy to see me and very respectful. The mentors were silent.

I don't know if these mentors are involved in FIRST anymore. If they are, I hope their views are very different.

I am proud that I took this action of confronting these mentors at this time. Other times, I have not. I will definitely be on the lookout for more of these opportunities. We all should be. We are here to educate, inspire, and mentor not only the students, but teams who need guidance, whether they know it or not.

... They're rock stars. And nobody hates Joe Perry or Jimmy Page or Jimi Hendrix because they play the guitar well. These folks are idolized and revered - and everybody knows they got to where they are through hard work and a bit of talent.

This is a new view to this. While it is widely understood to have the "I hate the Yankees" view, this view brings a new twist to it. Thanks, Mike.

Sincerely,
Andy B.

RoboMom

14-03-2011, 11:08

My question then is - can mentors guide other mentors to have a good attitude?

Yes, but it can be hard work.

Nikhil Bajaj

14-03-2011, 11:08

Nearly everybody works incredibly hard in FRC. But why do we have great teams and then good teams and then, just...teams? If performance in FRC was just a function of how much work and time that was put in to the robot, we'd have significantly better robots today. Everyone would have perfectly-running vision code, buttery-smooth drivetrains and mechanisms, and minimal robot breakdowns. But we don't have that.

We have teams that work incredibly hard and all they can field is a box on wheels. On the other side, we have teams that work incredibly hard and they come up with elegant, dominating machines. Why? That's complicated, and has to do with resources, brain power, organization, strategy, work ethic, and sometimes luck. But in the end, the why doesn't matter.

To the "haters" as they have been referred to in this thread: Come on guys, grow up. This is how the real world is. You know that. We all know that. So why would it be different in FRC, which is as real-world a competition as it gets?

Where FRC is different from the real world is NOT THE COMPETITION. It is in the culture surrounding the competition. Here's the difference. Let's say you have a company that is beating the crap out of its competitors in certain fields. Go to that company, and say "How did you do it? Tell us your strategies, your great technologies, and the secret to your success!"

If you are a competitor, that company is going to tell you to buzz off.

HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE: If you asked 148, or 1114, or 217, or 71, or 111, or 233, or 67, or WHOEVER you think is a great FRC team...THEY WILL TELL YOU THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. THEY WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO HAVE SUCCESS LIKE THEM.

People who think otherwise are dangerous to the success of FIRST in general.

Alpha Beta

14-03-2011, 11:35

I've appreciated the transparency some of the powerhouse teams have shown through their videos, blogs, and post-season white papers. It has gone along way to removing my feelings of jealosy and replacing it with admiration. I now assume the best about teams instead of the worst.

We are developing a culture on our team where we stand and applaud for every award and especially for the teams that beat us. Some of our students have to just do it even when they don't feel like it on the inside. I have had direct conversations with some of our students when I think someone doesn't get it, and we are willing to tell a student to take off our team shirt until they can. This also includes having conversations with students after we've been successful whose boasting makes it more difficult for other teams to be gracious towards us.

We have never been past the semi-finals in KC. We have been beaten by different teams every time. The variety of teams at the top is appreciated. I understand how losing to the same team every year can strain emotions. While powerhouses have a "home" regional it is also nice to see them vary the 2nd regional that they attend to avoid the appearance of beating up on a weaker region if they "always" win. (There are many circumstances where this is not possible and should not be used as a judgement on any team.)

It also helps when teams show a genuine interest in the design process of others. We try to stop by every pit during the weekend and find something to appreciate. We are developing relationships. I read in a book somewhere that "Listening disarms anger." Hearing what other teams have to share builds a bond that helps to overcome resentment. This is easier in a "home" regional than one you are a guest at.

Thank You JVN for bringing up this issue. We will not be tolerant in our corner of the world of the type of behavior you described in ourselves, on our team, or with anyone we might exhibit influence on.

Rich Kressly

14-03-2011, 11:48

I don't have a lot new to add, however I will most likely write a lot here as I usually do. I've been carrying a similar torch for a long while now (I'm sure you can find at least a dozen similar posts of mine on these boards if you'd like) and I'm glad it's still a conversation.

The issue isn't about 1114 here at all. 1114 is fine, is going to be fine, and will inspire the thousands they always inspire and win a lot of hardware while doing it. It's unfortunate they are targets here, but clearly they're not the only targets. In recent years I've seen this type of situation first-hand and it's anything but acceptable. This singular situation is an example of a growing culture problem (I think I called it "Kressly's Mainstreamers Theory" at one point).

Early in my FIRST years I remember viewing certain teams as "cheaters" too. Thankfully, I was well-mentored, listened to the right voices (both inside and well beyond my own team) until I had a better understanding. Bottom line is that once I REALLY got to know those teams, I was more amazed than anything.

For those of you who think it's demoralizing to a team to "lose" year after year to the same team, I'd bluntly state that I believe team leadership needs to refocus all of those team members with a consistent message about real meanings in FIRST and about the stark difference between the "full effort to win" vs. the actual winning itself. Besides, these powerhouses all need alliance partners, don't they?

I also find it sadly, and highly amusing, that many teams out there look at this situation as a "better robot because they have more access to goodies" situation. It takes ZERO DOLLARS AND ZERO EQUIPMENT to develop a sound game strategy and then scout (paper and pencil forms, maybe?) voraciously at events. If you match a sound strategy with a robot that can even play part of the game well (for example this year a box on wheels that plays defense and deploys a consistent minibot would certainly have a shot at the elims) and couple that with REAL scouting data from what you observe on the field of play you'll have yourself "in the mix" on the field and you'll build credibility with others. This isn't just about working hard, it's about working smart - knowing your strengths, timelines, and capabilities. If you don't have the infrastructure of an 1114 or 148 then trying to do as much as they do, the same way is planning for disaster. Also don't forget the other, equally wonderful award entry submissions that help you mark the culture change in your community.

I for one will raise my hand as a mentor that has NEVER helped to build an elite robot, but I have been able to, through my efforts, effectively bring about positive culture change in two communities (working on the third, now) and have contributed positively to many lives in the process. My teams, for the most part, have been competitive on the field, too. What more could I ever ask for? And much of the learning I've/we've done has been from the "powerhouse" teams because they've been so willing to share.

Quite frankly, those mentors/leaders/students/teams focused on solely extrinsic motivators (trophies) who are not EQUALLY espousing intrinsic motivators are missing the point altogether and pretty much haven't REALLY CLOSELY listened to Woodie and others. In my experience the more we focus in the intrinsic, the more the extrinsic happen anyway.

Like I said, I'm glad this is still a conversation, but I long for the day we will no longer need to have it. As Sean says, it's not a short, nor easy road.

CoachPoore

14-03-2011, 11:51

Thanks to JVN for airing this issue. Science and technology can solve many problems, but they cannot change the fact that jealousy is a very corrosive and destructive force. We cannot prevent people from feeling jealous of another team's repeated successes, but we can make it unacceptable for those feelings to be expressed in the kind of ways that 1114 had to suffer in Pittsburgh. For this to happen, the "silent majority" must not remain silent. In most cases, a gentle rebuke is probably all that is required - we don't have to be obnoxious to deal with those who are behaving in an obnoxious way.

I've been fortunate enough to see 1114's robots up close on several occasions at Championships and at IRI, and to be able to talk to their team members. I have come away from those interactions believing that there is no reason why our team cannot aspire to be as good as they are and achieve some of the same success. Their success is not magic, and it's certainly not "unfair". It's inspirational.

I would love to have 1114 (or any of the other powerhouse teams that have been mentioned in this thread) come and inspire us up close at the Granite State Regional next year :)

pandamonium

14-03-2011, 12:00

H.A.T.E.R.S. = Having Anger Towards Everyone Reaching Success

PhilBot

14-03-2011, 12:13

I did attend the Pittsburgh regional.

I had heard beforehand that 1114 was expected to be a powerhouse at the competition, and personally that excited me, because there is nothing worse than a regional full of Toasters on Wheels.

From practice day, the mystique started to grow. How come they weren’t in any matches? Was their robot working? No, I was told… they never show their robot ahead of time. I thought that was odd, but I’d learned not to believe urbane legends.

Then when they did start playing later in the day, their capabilities were very evident. I immediately said “why didn’t we think of that, and that, and that?”

Their team sat behind us in the stands so I got a few moments to chat, but they were very quiet and restrained. On Friday, after a grueling day, my wife and I happened to pick the same restaurant as 1114 to eat dinner. All their talk was about the robot and what to do to make it run better (unlike our team for sure).

Several times during the event I did try and go over to have a look at their robot, and talk to their team about how they organized themselves, but I will admit to being somewhat intimidated, and I didn’t have much success. They seemed very protective of their robot and tended to keep much to themselves. It was difficult to even start up a conversation. Perhaps this was in response to feeling somewhat under the microscope.

However, this was very much in contrast to the other Canadian teams at the event who seemed very eager to chat with me when I did the rounds with our junior team members.

BTW, their singer did an AMAZING job of their National Anthem.

This was my first time competing with 1114 in a regional, so I don’t know if their reserved nature, on and off the field is typical. I also don’t know if the “apparent” stand-offish nature that I observed is real or imagined. I could understand their possible reluctance to show off their entire tech to other US teams. As a non-American (I grew up in Australia) I’ve experienced the fear more than once that the USA comes in with open arms and leaves with all your goodies :)

I believe 1114 has won Chairmans several times, so they clearly understand the FIRST mission. Perhaps they could help us eliminate the “haters” by showing US a bit more about what makes THEM the team that they are (rather than just a great robot).

I for one would love to find out what motivates them, and try to apply it to my own team. Next time I'll try harder to start a conversation.

Phil.

BrendanB

14-03-2011, 12:39

I would love to have 1114 (or any of the other powerhouse teams that have been mentioned in this thread) come and inspire us up close at the Granite State Regional next year :)

Second! :)

BandChick

14-03-2011, 12:55

It has admittedly been a long time since I posted anything on CD, but this blog has provoked a reaction in me unlike almost anything else I've read in a long time. As with everyone else, I will do my best to refrain from restating all the things already in this thread, but I do want to say THANK YOU, John. Thank you for, if nothing else, doing your own part to change the culture and to make this a present issue - the problem can't be fixed until we are all aware of it. Also, my humble apologies to Karthik and the rest of the Simbots for the way they were treated, here's hoping that NEVER happens again!

I would like to say that I am very glad to have been raised in FIRST by several top notch teams and mentors. When I started as a rookie in FIRST, I was immediately accepted into the community by teams 103 and 25. Here on CD I got to know some of our WFA winners, our UFH winners, and several other amazing students and mentors that really "got" the FIRST message and lived by the ethos of Gracious Professionalism. These teams, students, and mentors taught me about respect, compassion, teamwork, and encouraged me not just to build a successful robot, but to build a successful team.

With one comes the other - powerhouse teams get their successful team using the robot as the medium, while other teams (like mine) use their teamwork and collaboration as the medium, and that begets the successful machine. I am often impressed, humbled, and proud of the powerhouse teams in FIRST because they are the ones that are constantly in their pits learning, teaching, struggling, and of course, having fun. They can be some of the best role models, just like our Chairman's Award winning teams.

I am going to add on an example to Rich Kressly's post, where he talks about needing good strategists and scouters. This is ABSOLUTELY true.

This year for the first time, my team (1089) made it to the finals at the New Jersey Regional. We believe we built a pretty good machine, but we also knew that there were certainly teams faster/better/stronger than us. We built our alliance for eliminations based on data and knowledge from our scouters and headed into eliminations against other alliances. We got smashed by 1923, 25, and 1860 in the first match of quarterfinals (124-22 - which was the national high score for Week 1, btw). I have considered for many years 25 to be among the ranks of the powerhouse teams, and I am always trying to play on par to their level. After our initial loss, our alliance's drive teams and a few mentors sat down and plotted out a new strategy, and we won - quarters, semis, and there we were in finals. We were eliminated in finals by another great alliance (1676, 2016, and 303), and as we were, our drive coach and I looked to each other and exclaimed "No regrets! What a great play, and what an amazing set of teams to lose to!" There was truly little to no disappointment by the mentors or students on my team - we came to work hard and play hard, regardless of the results, and our take-home message from the regional was that the weekend was fantastic, but we have improvements to make.

I am often reminded of the year I returned to my pit at Championships to find my students having a dance party after their last match of the weekend, even though they had lost all but one match, AND fried their C-RIO. There were no comments of frustration, disappointment, or anger. Instead, the students were glad to have come as far as they did, and were talking anxiously about improvements they could make during the off-season.

Also this year, the NJ Regional was visited by a team from California, and a member of their team wrote a letter to the judges - which they read aloud to the entire audience during the award ceremony. The member thanked the teams in NJ for being welcoming, supportive, and incorporating them into the community of the regional right off the bat. I was proud, in that moment, to call myself a FIRST mentor, and a member of NJ FIRST - I almost cried.

As for my team, you can BET I will be reminding my students that the behavior demonstrated at the Pittsburgh Regional is wholly unacceptable, and reminding them why professionalism (all aspects of it) NEEDS to be the way they act.

Thanks again, John, and everyone else working with him to make this change happen.

Karthik

14-03-2011, 12:56

From practice day, the mystique started to grow. How come they weren’t in any matches? Was their robot working? No, I was told… they never show their robot ahead of time. I thought that was odd, but I’d learned not to believe urbane legends.

Urban legend indeed. We weren't in our morning practice matches because we were upgrading our deployment and dealing with Banebot issues.

Several times during the event I did try and go over to have a look at their robot, and talk to their team about how they organized themselves, but I will admit to being somewhat intimidated, and I didn’t have much success. They seemed very protective of their robot and tended to keep much to themselves. It was difficult to even start up a conversation. Perhaps this was in response to feeling somewhat under the microscope.

We're generally a reserved group at competitions who definitely keep to ourselves. It's less about being under the microscope and more about being focused on a particular task and not getting distracted.

This was my first time competing with 1114 in a regional, so I don’t know if their reserved nature, on and off the field is typical. I also don’t know if the “apparent” stand-offish nature that I observed is real or imagined. I could understand their possible reluctance to show off their entire tech to other US teams. As a non-American (I grew up in Australia) I’ve experienced the fear more than once that the USA comes in with open arms and leaves with all your goodies :)

The reserved nature is typical, but I wouldn't call it "stand-offish". We definitely shared details about our robot to many teams who came by to visit. There was definitely no reluctance to show off information to US teams.

I believe 1114 has won Chairmans several times, so they clearly understand the FIRST mission. Perhaps they could help us eliminate the “haters” by showing US a bit more about what makes THEM the team that they are (rather than just a great robot).

We normally have an extensive display which talks about our non-robot efforts at our later events. It just wasn't done in time for Pittsburgh. Here's some archived information from the past: http://www.simbotics.org/team/outreach

I for one would love to find out what motivates them, and try to apply it to my own team. Next time I'll try harder to start a conversation.

I look forward to that conversation.

Karthik

14-03-2011, 13:04

thefro526

14-03-2011, 13:12

As embarrassing as it is to say this, during my Freshman and Sophomore year on 816 (And I would assume the years before), we were one of those teams that looked down on teams that were well funded, had ample resources and built strong machines year in and year out. My first exposure to robotics was Duel on the Delaware 2005 where some of the older team members swore up and down that Team XXX didn't build their robot and things like that.

At the end of the 2007 season, my class (Class of 2009) became the team leaders, and we WANTED to be like those upper tier teams. We knew that we didn't have the resources that they did, but we knew that we could build a robot that was as competitive - it just might not have been as pretty. In 2008 we were the #2 seed at NJ with an 8-0 record.

From that point forward, the attitude on our team shifted and we began to respect those top tier teams, knowing that with enough hard work we could be as good as them. Interestingly enough, I haven't heard one student on our team accuse another team of not building their robot since 2008. (It took a little longer for some of the long-time mentors to break the habit)

I think the way to Change the Culture (or at least get the ball rolling) is to show all teams two things:

1) "Engineer Built" Robots aren't always successful.

2) "Student Built" Robots can compete with, and win against Top-Tier teams - if the "Student Built" team works hard enough.

Personally, I find it offensive that some Students will call any Top Tier robot Engineer built. Just because the robot was made with care, looks professional, and works well, doesn't mean that Students didn't build it.

(On a semi-related note, I envy 1114, 148, 217, 254, 25, 2016, 2056, 111, 1625 etc in the same way that many people envy the best sports teams. I'd love to beat any one of them, and to be perfectly honest it's one of my goals - because if you can beat the best, then you are one of the best.)

fox46

14-03-2011, 13:15

Well I've been trying for about 10 years now to bring a team to your level but haven't been able to figure it out. Came close with 854 though. Kudos to you Karthik for getting it right.

David Dawson

14-03-2011, 13:36

As a mentor I am a bit more calm when I go to the MI districts and its easy to see why some students are upset and act the way they do. First off they are High School students that interpret everything they see at face value and use assumptions or mentor input to fill in the gaps about the things they don't know. To make things easier I'm only going to speak of teams that built robots that function the way they are supposed to 70% of the time.

So when team 9999 builds a good bot that works and plays the game like it was designed to, faces a 217 254 and 33 alliance or just one powerhouse team like 1114 they lose and then get to thinking. First comes the simple thoughts about unique great ideas like 33's arm last year or 233's arm in 07, works and how team 9999 can build them. That's looking at robotics at face value which is ok.

Where students on teams like 9999 go wrong is when they don't know how something works like 148's sheet metal or wildstangs drive trains. They then assume it was mentor built without knowing what those teams did in the first place to build those bots. You would think this is an easy fix with a little mentor guidance. But instead of mentors doing research and understanding what the power house teams do and inform their students on what to do. They take the easy way out and say a mentor did it.

TL;DR Students will be students, It's the mentors job to do the right thing.

JesseK

14-03-2011, 13:38

It's really unfortunate when this happens to a team, yet even more so when it comes from the non-FRC community. While we should strive to change the culture of FIRST as has been stated, I think we should be glad it only happens in the closed world of FIRST for most teams who have high-visibility in their local communities and regionals. The rest of the world, with its vast majority of opinions and options, is a far more insidious place.

Rich Olivera

14-03-2011, 13:42

It is obvious that 1114 strives for a high standard of excellence on and off the field. The tragic thing is that people seem to believe the goal of excellence on the field is in conflict with the ideals of FIRST. They couldn’t be more wrong. To illustrate my point, let me describe my team’s experience working with 1114.
As some of you may know, my team (2041) was lucky enough to be picked by 1114 and 469 at the championship last year. In our very first match together, we cracked our center drive wheels in a shoving match with 1732. After the match, a mentor from 1114 named Jeff helped us inspect our robot for damage. The conversation went something like this:
Me: “It looks like we damaged some of our wheels.”
<Jeff takes a look>
Jeff: “Well, those are wheels KOP wheels, we have plenty of those. What will it take to fix the problem?”
Me “Well to replace the wheel all you need to do is…..”
Jeff “No no, what will it take to FIX the problem”
I was shocked. The elimination rounds run at a fast pace. Here Jeff was insisting that we find some way to reinforce the wheels, fabricate it, and install it all between curie divisional elimination matches. I would have been ok with a solution that would have survived the elims. 1114 wanted to solve the problem for good. More importantly, this mentality permeated every student behind that curtain. Every student became committed to the idea of making us better, even this late in the game. In short, every student was inspired in a way I have not seen before in FIRST. This is what 1114 brings to the community.
Photo evidence of the fix implemented:
Before:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielernst/4539153224/in/set-72157623898298752/
After:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielernst/4538667431/in/set-72157623898298752/

Another great example comes later that day. In the last match of the finals, 2041 spent half the match stuck in a goal. When we freed ourselves, we clumsily blocked two more of our partners goals. In short, 2041 felt as though it cost the alliance the championship. It was obvious that 1114 wanted to win. They had to feel disappointed. No one can deny that. However, when it was all said and done, they went out of their way to thank us and encourage us. Rather than dwell on their own disappointment, they helped a relatively inexperienced team cope with its disappointment. I was touched by their sincerity. If that is not gracious professionalism, I don’t know what is.
It’s been said before, but apparently it needs to be repeated: Get to know the powerhouse teams. Learn how they operate, how they problem-solve, and how they act. Not only will you be pleasantly surprised, you will be inspired.
1114 is a perfect example of this. It saddens me that they are so badly misunderstood.

Darren Collins

14-03-2011, 13:46

I started FIRST as a student back in 1998 on Team 188. Our robot was not very good that year. Countless hours were put in by 30 high school students that year, and we made a robot we were very proud of, but frankly we got our butts handed to us at EPCOT. What I remember from that year is being awe-struck by teams like 111, 47, 71, 16 and 126. Their level of excellence and dominance was simply inspiring. I remember thinking "One day, I want to have a team like that. I want to make people's jaws drop they way mine did this weekend." After years of hard work with 1114 we were able to make that happen. It didn't happen overnight, but it sure did happen. It's not hopeless, it definitely is possible to rise to an elite level.

As a mentor, I felt the same way during our rookie year in 2007. We had a slow, tippy robot that we were proud of. However, upon seeing excellent teams at our regional and championships, we were inspired to work harder and learn from others.

When I see a well organized team with an efficient, elegant robot, I am motivated to learn more so that I can provide greater opportunities for my own students. Each year, our students and mentors seek to learn and improve through our own experiences and from the work of other teams. I ask my students to learn from others' robots and team organization and take the good and use it.

Wallowing is self pity and insulting the hard work of highly successful teams is damaging for everyone; Nothing is inspirational about it. This type of behavior should be confronted by all in an attempt to elimate it entirely.

martin417

14-03-2011, 13:50

I became involved with FIRST in 2008 (yes, that makes me a noob). It was 1114 that really inspired me to stay involved. I was green, and knew nothing about FIRST that year. We got to go to championships where I saw 1114 and their awesome robot. I realized that our robot had the POTENTIAL to be just as good, if the execution had been better. I was happy that we come away with the Xerox creativity award that year. I also came away with the determination to improve. I knew that our team had the ability to be as good as anybody else, we just needed the experience and leadership. We have come a long way, but we are not yet at the "powerhouse" level. What I can say is that we have improved every year. Last year we had a blast, and did well, playing head to head in the quarterfinals on Galileo against another powerhouse, the Thunderchickens. I hope to get the opportunity to play against (or better yet, with) a powerhouse team again this year, hopefully with different results.

Is our robot 100% designed and built by student? No. Do the students have 100% say-so over all decisions? yes. Do the mentors help with design and build? Absolutely. Are we focused on winning? You bet. Winning is the motivation for excellence. Who wants to work as hard as you can, and not do everything you can to win? This past Saturday we spent 14 hours at the school modifying the robot because we came up with an idea that would make us better. We had an excellent bot Saturday morning, but we decided it was worth the effort to make it better. The students knew the challenge involved, and were willing to put in the time and effort make it a little better. The motivation for that willingness is teams like Simbotics that always have a great robot. Don't look at them as spoilers, look to them for inspiration. Do your best to beat them. I like to think they will respect you for it.

BandChick

14-03-2011, 13:54

When I see a well organized team with an efficient, elegant robot, I am motivated to learn more so that I can provide greater opportunities for my own students. Each year, our students and mentors seek to learn and improve through our own experiences and from the work of other teams. I ask my students to learn from others' robots and team organization and take the good and use it.

Wallowing is self pity and insulting the hard work of highly successful teams is damaging for everyone; Nothing is inspirational about it. This type of behavior should be confronted by all in an attempt to elimate it entirely.

I absolutely agree. Our team has built good robots, and TERRIBLE robots. But we firmly believe that there is plenty to learn from your mistakes, and in turn, from the successes of others. Several members of my team spend time in the pits learning about OTHER team's innovations, and powerhouse teams are consistently the ones we are ENVIOUS of, and asking thousands of questions about.

Be proud of what you can do with whatever means you're given, and strive to do one better next year. Remember that competition is a CELEBRATION of the journey you took to get there. Every team's journey (no matter if they're a powerhouse or a "regular" team) is just as long and stressful. Every student is equally vested in the process, in their machine and team, and that in itself should be empowering. As long as you're doing your best, you should be having a great time!

JaneYoung

14-03-2011, 14:03

It's interesting how a consensus is forming around the attitude of the adult leaders of teams and the FIRST community and that they make the different in the shaping and changing of attitudes within the team. Yet many self-proclaimed 'student led' teams never give credit to that aspect of their team or accept it. Truth is, mentors/adult leaders make or break the program, on the field and off the field.

The idea of adults and students working together towards achieving a goal, beginning within the team, but capable of moving outwardly in stunning directions - is foreign to many, including teams. As new members enter the teams/regions, it is up to the teams/regions to have developed training programs that educate the students and the adults. It's an iterative process and if it isn't in place, situations like Pittsburgh arise. It's not just the robot that requires continual improvement - it is the team and the team philosophy/attitude. That becomes very obvious in situations like the ones discussed in this thread.

Jane

Rich Kressly

14-03-2011, 14:07

The other thing I find in the "powerhouse" teams is that, no matter how good they get, they continue to learn from their community. Their own pride/ego is always in check and they never stop considering that there may be great ideas out there they can use.

Ex 1: Just this year, 148 (through JVN's blog) tells us that perhaps the best part of their manipulator design cam directly from the 2007 Team 67 robot.

Ex 2: Team 1114 in 2006. They had already been exceedingly successful on the field and with awards. It was the same year they manufactured a part for 1712's rookie robot and then delivered to to PA from Canada! Yet, anything but full of themselves they wanted to improve their chances with Chairman's. They were certainly a worthy team, but hungered to know what I knew/thought about it since I had been with 103 in 2003 and spent time as a Sr. Mentor as well. So, over instant messenger, for maybe a 2 hour period I brain dumped to Karthik everything I knew about the award, the entry, maintaining the team's integrity, giving his team the best chance to win, but doing it the "right" way as well. This involved some review of their previous work and pushing some files in his direction. Mind you this all took place after midnight the way I recall. Karthik then turned around, took the info to his team, and they implemented from the lessons learned where they could. Egoless. Hungry. Work ethic. 1114 happened to win a regional CA that year. Because they deserved to, because they worked at it, and because they learned from others. While still on the field with the trophy, Karthik pulled out his phone, dialed my number, and I heard a crying student say "thank you." Class act. I have no idea how much I helped them, but I can tell you that the feeling I had inside from that phone call was nearly equal to my own team winning the CCA in 2003.

Dmentor

14-03-2011, 14:24

We are FIRST. Our mission is “to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders”. I fail to see how deprecating, denigrating, and downright boorish behavior towards any individual or team helps us accomplish our mission. We represent such a tiny minority in the world. Accordingly, we need to all be pulling in the same direction if we are going to realize our stated vision. We should be celebrating every potential new science and technology leader regardless of which number is on their t-shirt.

Racer26

14-03-2011, 15:21

I've competed alongside 1114 for quite a number of years both as a student and a mentor. I am very familiar with the negative vibes toward them. I will not lie nor will I take the moral high-road- I don't like competing with them.

Before you jump all over me, let me explain why:

Every year I watch a group of students, teachers, parents, mentors and sponsors pour their hearts and souls into a machine. They regularily stay up until 5am in the morning trying to squeeze in a few more hours of design work. I have watched them struggle to keep their marks from slipping as they try to make their team the best it can be. I have watched parents, teachers and mentors including myself push themselves to and past their mental, physical and emotional limits trying to give 150% - but they do it.
Every - single - year.

And yet every year I see these people show up to a competition with their masterpiece. They are proud of it. They are inspired by what they have accomplished. To make it onto the field is a high- it is the culmination of the thousands of hours of dedication compromises and commitment. They feel on top of the world. This is FIRST.

However, with one match against one of these powerhouse teams these people's hopes and dreams that they might have a shot at winning a regional, award or the acolade of their peers can be dashed to bits after being hopelessly clobbered by a team like 1114.

How are these people supposed to feel after having another team kick dirt all over their dream machine? They ask themselves- "We gave it our all- 150% - and yet it wasn't enough? How do we become a team like that? How did they do it?" At first they feel inspired to find out how this other team was able to produce a result so much better than theirs. Next year they try again.... and they get clobbered. The following year they try- and again they can't reach the "powerhouse" level of competition.

You have to understand that every year teams put so much time and effort - sheer sweat and determination into their machines but it seems hopeless to ever compete on a level playing field with the likes of these powerhouse teams. What was formerly awe and inspiration now turns to frustration and resentment. They feel inadequate and inferior. They have just been shown that their best effort is not good enough.

This is why these feelings exist and why there is much negativity felt for these kinds of "powerhouse" teams.

As for how we change this? Well I really don't know. Lets see what kind of problem solvers these teams really are.

I can certainly appreciate this sentiment. Being from a small-town GTA team, with limited (growing in the last few years, but still) resources, and a very small mentor-base to depend on, I'm certainly familiar with the "give-110% and its still not enough" feelings when being crushed by <insert powerhouse here>.

I regularly see this anti-powerhouse view within my own team, the whole "professionally- versus student-built" argument, and I regularly try to correct them, and point out that programs such as 1114's, 217's, 2056's, 148's et al, still do what FIRST is all about: inspiring students to embark on a life journey in changing the culture, by becoming scientists, engineers, technologists and mathematicians, they simply do it in different ways to how teams like ours do. Indeed, the programs of these powerhouses inspire people well beyond the walls of their own schools.

Big name sponsors with deep pockets, laser-cutting, sheet-metal stamping, and AutoCAD/Inventor drawn designs do not a dominating robot make. The members of 1075 should be well aware of this, since in the off-season of 2008, after our robot was a complete flop during the regular season, we set out to be competitive in the off-season by copying some of the best design elements of 1114's world-champion robot, and adding our own twist to it.

Its no real secret that we did this; indeed, Karthik had been notified by text-message within minutes of our arrival at the first event we went to with it. I'm not ashamed, imitation is the highest form of flattery. We went on to win at that event, and the other offseason we went to that year. For me, this was the confirmation I needed to prove that it does not take all those things to have a winning robot. What is needed to have a winning robot, is a winning design, coupled with some mechanical reliability (Despite winning at Kettering Kickoff 2008, we did not play in the finals, due to a drivetrain-destroying event, redesigned in time for Brunswick Eruption).

I think its fairly undeniable that Simbot SS (1114's 2008 robot) was a winning design. It won 2 GM Industrial Design awards, 3 regionals, and Championship. (According to FIRSTs website, anyway)

While Simbot SS was a beautiful sheet-metal machine, worthy of the awards it received, as well as the envy, and no doubt received its fair share of this "well, thats a professionally-built robot" nonsense, our implementation of the key design elements of it was far less pretty, far less costly, far less well known, but our robot won the only two events it went to.

What is needed to win FRC events is a mechanically-reliable winning design, and drivers that know how to drive their robot. ANY team, regardless of resources is capable of producing a mechanically-reliable robot. The key to this is to not attempt something that is beyond your means. Know what you can achieve, and work within it. ANY team is capable of producing a winning design. This does NOT require anything more than brainpower, and time. ANY team is capable of having drivers that know how to drive their robot. The key is practice. I often see robots that are quite capable of doing well have matches chalked up in the L column due to a lack of driver-experience. Whether this means building a second robot so they can practice between ship and competition, or whether this means building a SIMPLER robot, so you can be finished earlier in the build, I leave up to you and your resources.

IndySam

14-03-2011, 15:24

If we are sharing 1114 stories then I will share my "this is why they're so good" moment about 1114.

My team was at IRI, the game was Overdrive. I had never had much exposure to 1114 other than a brief conversation with Karthik on the floor at The Championship so I really knew nothing about them other than their great bots.

We took our bot to the practice floor and there was 1114, they were tweaking their autonomous mode. They had by far the best bot that year with an amazing autonomous mode but there they were taking the time to squeeze out just a little bit more. They never stopped trying to improve even when they were already great.

That's why they are the best and that's the story I will gladly share with anyone I hear disparaging them.

Akash Rastogi

14-03-2011, 15:37

I'll share a story about the kind of students Simbotics raises.

Atlanta 2010- MORT had designed one of the worst robots in our team's history (many things during build season just did not work out).

Chris Lyddiatt from 1114 knew we were not having a competitive year, so he asked if he could spend his time in Atlanta with our team.

Chris was by far the most helpful person our team has ever worked with from another team. His skill and knowledge finally had us using our swerve drive correctly which had given us issues all season. He helped design a new hanging system as well. Within the three days of competition, our pit crew and mentors became very good friends with Chris and came to admire his level of professionalism and knowledge. We all hung out together afterwards too, he even popped on a MORT t-shirt.

A quote right from his thank you to our team:

"I would just like to thank everyone on MORT for welcoming me with open arms to the team. I had an amazing time during the Championships and am looking forward to more competitions with you guys. If anytime I can help anyone out with anything shoot me a message and i will gladly help.

Thanks again

Chris L"

How often do you hear someone thanking you after they fix the functionality of your robot?

If you ever dare to think these students don't know what is going on in their teams, or that a robot is "mentor built," go talk to them, ask them for help. When 11's veteran mentors and students all showed Chris thanks, he thanked us back for a wonderful Championship experience, even with a middle of the pack team like ours.

These kids know a lot more than you know and will be more respected than most others ever will.

PhilBot

14-03-2011, 15:45

Urban legend indeed. We weren't in our morning practice matches because we were upgrading our deployment and dealing with Banebot issues.

I feel your pain on that one. Had the same problem in Rack 'N Roll.

I look forward to that conversation.

I'll hold you to that.
I have FTC and FLL tickets to Nationals, and I know you have an FRC ticket.
You going to be there?

fuzzwaz

14-03-2011, 16:48

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but I've started to notice students from other teams talk this way about Chairman's teams.

I know personally from students talking about 503's chairmans to my face.

There’s a mentality out there that if you are well funded, you can just pay your way to the top. Teams can buy resources, advertisement- use money to do all the outreach for them.

We actually got criticized for having a major sponsor for 11 years? Somehow, it gave us an undeniable edge for community outreach because of our funding?

It doesn’t feel good at all...

Chris is me

14-03-2011, 17:06

I can buy the argument that it's a bit intimidating to talk to them in the pit. They are all very driven and busy, and don't necessarily have the time to embrace their crowd with open arms. It's not a flaw of 1114's nor does it even begin to justify what happened to them, but on a busy day like Thursday I could understand why someone might get a negative impression.

I'll contrast that to an interaction I had with 217 at the Championship. I walked over to get a picture of their robot. Their driver at the time basically invited me in, proceeding to give me a nice 10 minute tour of their robot. They flipped it over, turned it on, showed how all the subsystems worked including the pincher and nonadrive, and talked about their design tradeoffs. It was like asking for a small glass of water and being given a 40 gallon drum.

I would reach some conclusion and say that teams could be even more proactive about being outgoing at competitions if they don't want to be hated, but that honestly shouldn't be necessary. Plus, 1114 really does get it. I happened to be visiting the St. Catharines / Niagara Falls region last summer and 1114 offered me a tour of their facilities before I could even ask. If that's not professionalism and going above and beyond, I don't know what is.

The most surprising thing about the visit, though, is that Simbotics turned out to really be not all that different from any other team. They worked out of a school shop with a handful of mills, lathes, and other equipment. They had worked their way into getting a decent work space, but there were a lot of closets and hallways; I bet they probably started off with just the little shop out back. 1114's shop (and school) is virtually identical to 2791's. I'd say we're a little better off. 1114 has everything they did because they work harder. More sponsors, recruiting engineers to help, the IFI partnership.

The best part of the tour? Not one mentor was present. None. The meeting I was at was 100% students. The students ran the tour and explained the details of every last thing I asked about. It was impressive, to say the least.

Chris86

14-03-2011, 17:14

Though my team (86) only competes in the Florida Regional every year, I pay attention to the powerhouse teams because they are just awesome to watch. Seeing these teams at the championship or even by looking at some of the teams at our regional, it is so amazing to see the technology that gets put into their robot. It is truly inspiring to see some of the things that are put into a robot (my favorite is 148 this year) and it drives me to try and beat them. I'm that kind of competitive person that likes being the underdog, and I love that they bring out amazing competition every year to fight against. That being said, I am also jealous of these teams and there are a few things in FIRST culture that do need to be changed.

1 - This is a specific example that I will generalize later - I wish my team had a CNC machine... you lucky few...your robots are just beautiful. WOW /jealousy to the extreme. People that saw our robot this year at Florida regional up close may have noticed our lime-green duct tape used to "powdercoat" our claw and minibot deployment mechanism. The technological gap between some teams is a big portion of why some don't think that some robots are "student-built." When my team would spend 6 weeks on our 1960's era (I think thats the year...REALLY old is all I can say about it as a student) mill to cut out a piece that takes a laser CNC a day, the difference in manual labor is blatant.

A few years ago, some other team's mentor came and pointed to our robot and noted that some our welds looked sloppy. My mentor Dave looked over and commented that their robot's welds looked pretty nice and also asked who did the welds. It turned out that a student's parents owned a welding company that did their welds for them, which is nice, but our robot is student welded and we have never broken a weld.

The major point of this is that there is not a laser-cut (get it? hahaha) definition of "student-built" or "mentor-built."

2. The role of a mentor on a team is not something that can nor should be standardized. Our head mentor is there to teach the mechanical equipment, not to mention letting 40-50 kids use his house and personal backyard workshop to build robots. Our mentors are there to teach during the fall and watch over for safety during the build season. This year, a mentor came up to our team before alliance selection and began asking our drive coach about our robot and strategy. Our mentor said, "You're talking to the wrong person, I'm the drive coach because its a nice place to watch a match from" and directed the questions to me.

3. Finally, I'm a little confused by the student intelligence discussion. Seems besides the point when the discussion is about "mentor-built" not "you students cant do that." With CNC machines, nothing looks even mentor built, much less student built (if you have a kid with laser-eyes milling out your robot, then I'd be REALLY jealous).

Last year's codriver is going to Caltech right now, this year's is accepted into Stanford and is waiting on MIT to decide, and our dictator (elections are too much of a hassle) has the best scholarship to Georgia Tech waiting for him, but is also waiting for MIT. Previously, we've had two students go to Princeton, one is at Yale, and one went to MIT (in his junior year in high school). These are all members that I know personally (I'm sure there are others that I'm unaware of) so I would beg to differ if any argument is made that a team is a powerhouse because of overly intelligent kids.

The point of all this is: to the people that don't like the powerhouse teams - be inspired by them and the technology that gets put into their robot. If nothing else, make a goal of bringing a stronger robot to competition. The U.S. was built on innovation and that's the point of FIRST, innovate and surprise them.

To all you powerhouses: If you have an extra CNC machine that our head mentor can afford the power costs for, let me know! To the point: this post shows almost no attempt to understand the teams involved. You should understand how privileged your team is resources compared to others and you may understand their feelings a little bit more.

Finally, to all the people at pit that booed and acted childishly at pit, you should know better as a part of FIRST.

Racer26

14-03-2011, 17:14

Chris is me

14-03-2011, 17:24

@Chris is me: I too have toured the 1114 shop, and was pleasantly surprised to have much the same reaction. I do know however, that much of their competition robot is outsourced to sponsors machine shops (IFI for the sheetmetal, for instance), and that they have (at least in past, if not presently) access to a closed Niagara District School Board school's gymnasium to set up a practice field in, which they don't have to tear down during build/competition season. I know they have also made this space available for local teams to use in past years.

Am I envious? Absolutely. Do I think they should be hindered or chastised for their awesomeness? Certainly not.

But the thing is, 1114 didn't just spring up with an IFI partnership. They worked hard and diligently to get it. It took them years to get that sponsorship - their 2009 robot was their first IFI sheetmetal robot.

I believe that from 2004 onward (?) their robot was machined almost exclusively in house, using sponsors for parts like their sheetmetal 2006 ball tower. It sounds exactly like how my own team builds robots.

tim-tim

14-03-2011, 17:27

To be honest, I used to be a young and dumb student who thought the same thing. Then I finally had the chance my junior year of high school to compete in nationals. This is where I was proved wrong!

Boy was I ever wrong. Some the teams previously mentioned took the time to explain to me how they went about doing things, and I was impressed. Most of these "dominant" teams (and I use the word dominant lightly) are year-round teams. There is no off-season or start and stop. It is a continuous process. These students have the luxury having fantastic mentors, and yes maybe a lot more resources than us. So be it. I learned so muh that weekend in Atlanta, and I was proved wrong, and really look up to those teams now.

Thanks JVN.

saworms

14-03-2011, 17:30

Probably those people who Booed 1114 and Canada were probably people uneducated in the FIRST values. They may have been students that came down to get bonus points, instead of being actual team members. I feel that they, the teachers that give the students the choice of bonus, should choose the students that they feel can act appropriate throughout the event. These comments should not happen to anyone who participates in FIRST.

Team 1114, I feel someone should appologize for these people's behaviors, even though I do not know who did it I am sorry that someone did this to you and I hope you do not be bothered like this again.

Saworms

Karthik

14-03-2011, 17:35

But the thing is, 1114 didn't just spring up with an IFI partnership. They worked hard and diligently to get it. It took them years to get that sponsorship - their 2009 robot was their first IFI sheetmetal robot.

I believe that from 2004 onward (?) their robot was machined almost exclusively in house, using sponsors for parts like their sheetmetal 2006 ball tower. It sounds exactly like how my own team builds robots.

This is correct. IFI began sponsoring our team in 2008, and only began doing sheet metal for us in 2009. Each year that IFI has done sheet metal for us, major parts of our robot have still been done in house. (Drivetrain in 2009, Hanger in 2010, Minibot deployment in 2011) If you look at our robots closely, you'll notice that there is a very homemade feel to certain parts of them. For example, this year's robot features two plastic drinking cups, a fishing pole and a chunk of wood. (Much to the chagrin of some, and to the pleasure of others)

Racer26

14-03-2011, 17:37

I also remember an instance in the 2009 GTR Finals, when the Head Ref made the decision to not allow 188 to play in Finals Match 2 after 188/610/1305 had upset 2056/1114/2185 in Finals Match 1, and they were about 10 seconds late returning from a timeout to repair 610's manipulator. Karthik, and a number of others were stunned to hear what sounded like nearly the entire stadium booing the decision. It was evident that people didn't like what ultimately amounted to handing the 1114/2056/2185 alliance Finals match 2 on a silver platter, but the way it was shown was downright embarrassing to the Canadian FIRST community.

Karthik was so stunned by this that he forgot to have the alliances do the traditional handshake prior to FM2.

Madison

14-03-2011, 17:47

This is correct. IFI began sponsoring our team in 2008, and only began doing sheet metal for us in 2009. Each year that IFI has done sheet metal for us, major parts of our robot have still been done in house. (Drivetrain in 2009, Hanger in 2010, Minibot deployment in 2011) If you look at our robots closely, you'll notice that there is a very homemade feel to certain parts of them. For example, this year's robot features two plastic drinking cups, a fishing pole and a chunk of wood. (Much to the chagrin of some, and to the pleasure of others)

Don't take this the wrong way, y'all -- but one of the things that some of the folks on my team and myself liked about your 2008 robot was that it was kinda ugly. :)

You don't get to see that stuff on a webcast and so teams fill in the blanks on their own, but the reality is that no team is building robots that we can't manage to make ourselves. We all have different capabilities and it'd definitely be implement certain mechanisms with more/different/better resources, but there are always ways around the roadblocks.

XaulZan11

14-03-2011, 18:03

I can understand how people/teams 'hate' the elite teams. Me and my team's rookie year was 2006. At both our events that year were on the 8th and 7th alliance, and got absolutely killed by 111 in the first round of each event. We had no chance at coming close to beating 111, who went on to win each event. After the events and seeing a polished, professional robot, a huge team with a ton adult mentors on the field accepting their awards and Raul yelling at the drive team, it was easy to say "yeah, 111 has Motorola build their robot for them". I really felt Wildstang cheated. Thankfully, is not really my personality to boo or do things similar to what happened at Pittsburgh. Obviously, I don't feel that way now (even after they absolutely dominated Wisconsin again this year). I wish I knew when and what made my opinion change.

Walking back to the pit after Saturday's award ceremony this weekend a student from a team I respect and 'gets it', said something like Wildstang should feel ashamed and didn't deserve to win because no students touched their robot. I said something like, "nah, I'm not sure I agree with that, I'm sure their students put a ton of effort in." After reading this thread, I wish I would have taken a stronger stance and encouraged him to talk to their students about their robot. I do agree its up to the experienced teams, mentors and students to squash any of these negative thoughts and actions.

Teams like 111 and 1114 are what makes FIRST special. They provide an unthinkable amount of inspiration. Without 111, 71, 70 and 494, who were the best teams at my first events, I'm not sure I would be as involved in FIRST as I am right now. They continue to inspire and motivate 1732 to improve. After watching 111 this weekend, we are determined to improve to get to their level. Thanks 111, 1114 and all the other elite teams that inspire and push teams to improve.

GGCO

14-03-2011, 18:04

This is really unfortunate and I hope the mentors on all teams give their team a serious talk about this kind of behavior.

From my own experiences with COMETS Robotics, I have had to face similar criticism from teams. Last year was our rookie year, but we had three members (myself included) that were veteran FRC members from another team.

So when we had an incredible amount of success, we made it to Einstein, there were many teams who told us (sometimes to our faces) that we were a "rookie" team. I put it in quotes because they were implying that our team didn't deserve the amount of awards we received.

So I can understand the terrible behavior that 1114 experienced, and it's my hope that this kind of attitude ceases to exist in the FRC.

Cory

14-03-2011, 18:07

There's not much that hasn't been said here already but I've noticed one prominent theme in this thread-an outpouring of support for 1114 specifically because people know that mentors don't build their robot, that it is a partnership of students and adults.

Who cares who builds the robot? If 1114 or any other team wanted to have their robot be built entirely by adults that would be no better or worse than a team that has theirs built entirely by students, or anywhere else in the spectrum. Who are we to judge how or why a team does what they do? If it inspires their kids then it should be good enough for anyone.

Dave Scheck

14-03-2011, 18:33

Walking back to the pit after Saturday's award ceremony this weekend a student from a team I respect and 'gets it', said something like Wildstang should feel ashamed and didn't deserve to win because no students touched their robot. I said something like, "nah, I'm not sure I agree with that, I'm sure their students put a ton of effort in."[/quote After reading this thread, I wish I would have taken a stronger stance and encouraged him to talk to their students about their robot. I do agree its up to the experienced teams, mentors and students to squash any of these negative thoughts and actions.Thanks for sticking up for us in whatever capacity you did. It's good to know that members of teams that we respect have our backs.

It's unfortunate that the student you referred to has those feelings. I wish that he/she would have stopped by our pit after match 56 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAX1IBDU0wc). In that match, there was a screw in the supershifter that started to work its way out. This caused the robot to get stuck in low gear for most of the match. After the match, we ran a few tests and Raul assessed the problem based on what he saw and told the students to fix it. Within 20-30 minutes, the students on their own had the drive module off, had the gearbox disassembled, fixed, put back together, and reinstalled on the robot.

I should be over it after 10 years in this program, but it really bothers me when people think that our students aren't involved. It's extremely disrespectful and dangerous to jump to conclusions about what students do on the team as well as what they get out of it.

If anyone reading this has this view or knows somebody that does, send them to our pits at Midwest or Championship. I'd love for them to spend some time with our students to see what they know.

Mike Soukup

14-03-2011, 18:55

Walking back to the pit after Saturday's award ceremony this weekend a student from a team I respect and 'gets it', said something like Wildstang should feel ashamed and didn't deserve to win because no students touched their robot.
I'll add on to what Dave said. Statements like this shouldn't bother me after being around for 11 years, but they still do. Why? Because it's completely bogus and it diminishes the work that our dedicated students put in. Too bad that student wasn't around our shop the week before ship to see 3-4 mentors and 6-7 students spend the entire evening debugging our arm's gearbox. It was binding up and we had no idea why. Our students disassembled & reassembled the gearbox no less than 4 times while we all attempted to root cause the problem. Most of the students were still working on it at 11pm when I went home. By the time I got in the next day, it was diagnosed and fixed.

JVN

14-03-2011, 19:05

A good friend told me:
"Great thread, it is cool to see so many people piling on... too bad it probably won't change anything because Chief Delphi is such a small part of FIRST in general."

Yep. That is the problem. We all need to do our part to pay this forward. The kind of negative behavior is unacceptable and we all need to do our part (especially as mentors within our own teams) to stop it.

The only way to make a noticeable shift in OUR culture is if there are a lot of small shifts.

148 will be sporting "Be Professional" buttons for the rest of our events this year.

-John

Squillo

14-03-2011, 19:07

Doesn't it all boil down to showing "Gracious Professionalism" to the 'powerhouse' teams, as well as those who struggling - and everyone in between? Maybe it's harder to be gracious to a team that kicks your butt, but no one said it would be easy. It's easy to help out a team that you "know" you're going to beat anyway, but we should all be willing to share our expertise, parts, and aloha spirit with all the other teams. How many of us (most, I would suggest - and hope) would provide a helpful suggestion or needed part to a team that we're about to be up against in a regional final match? Would you? I hope so.

JaneYoung

14-03-2011, 19:10

Statements like this shouldn't bother me after being around for 11 years, but they still do. Why? Because it's completely bogus and it diminishes the work that our dedicated students put in.

This may be a big part of the problem. Teams that brag about being 'student-lead without mentor support' may automatically discount their own value to teams when they see a 'mentor/student' relationship that drives the team to excellence. When students and mentors diss either side of that relationship is when the potential for assumptions and wrong judgments is increased. They blind themselves to the reality by their own judgment and ignorance.

Taken further, communities that don't understand FRC and see it as a type of science fair will do the same thing, discounting the value of the students and judging the value of the mentors in unfavorable and untrue ways.

Jane

boomergeek

14-03-2011, 21:08

Gracious professionalism does not call attention to transgressions (even attention that leaves "perpetrators" anonymous)- GP publicly calls attention to positive behavior.

Jealousy is real - it can not be invalidated just because it is judged morally wrong. Having a thread that makes moral judgements about those that feel they have less than others does not serve a great purpose. Lecturing people not to be jealous from the perspective of already having a lot generally falls on deaf ears.

Those that have more resources should be thankful and feel lucky and privileged to be part of a powerhouse. Almost all also feel greater responsibility to give to other teams, even without other teams asking for help. FIRST is foremost about generosity of spirit: competition is just a tool.

Students and mentors and families can see the disparity in resources between teams. Some resort to trying to make themselves feel better by imagining malicious or braggart behavior on the part of some members of a powerhouse. They can sometimes take tiny anecdotes out of context and let their imaginations run wild.

Gracious Professionalism is about calling yourself out, not calling out the transgressions of others. It's not about calling attention to being wronged or attention to others like you being wronged, it's about embracing life as it comes.

What is more important? Trying to stop a false rumor at a competition or trying to help a team onto a more rationale track?
(I view negative gender/racial/ethnic comments as totally unacceptable and need to be nipped in the bud with zero tolerance)
But those are not anywhere in the same space as noticing and commenting on how much students actually touch and repair a robot during a competition.
(I think the actual facts point to most powerhouse teams have many times more well-trained students than the weaker teams do).

The GP thing to do is to be as generous as you can and be as anti-judgmental as possible whether you are a powerhouse or a fledgling team. If you notice a team with a bad attitude at a competition, what is the right GP response? Being overtly generous at the competition? Or making a series of generous overtures to the bad attitude team outside of the competition (and across many years) without ever letting them know you think they have/had a bad attitude?

Once you have befriended them, they will likely learn on their own to have a better attitude. Once you are friends then you can also more easily approach subjects that you have differing perspectives on. All without ever calling them out, and certainly not calling them out in a public forum (even anonymously).

OK, enough of my own judgementalism. Let me know where I got it wrong.

Grim Tuesday

14-03-2011, 21:30

Let me preface this by saying that I DO think less of teams like 1114 for not building their own robot. I will always be more proud of, and cheer more for a student built robot. However, except in the context of this thread, I would never say it. The level of dedication that teams like 1114, 217, 2056, 148 etc... is just as much as other teams. They just put it in other areas. What is ridiculous is that people would do such rude things as mentioned at Pittsburgh regional. No matter how I feel about how they built their robot, they still designed it, and deserve the award. I am utterly sickened by something like this going on in FIRST. If they were the ones behind the robot, and inspiring it, then they are deserving. On the other hand, if they sat by while other people made their robot, then I have no respect for them. I have a feeling it is not the second option.

Mr. Van

14-03-2011, 21:35

Pedestals.

If you consistently win, and time and time again build great robots, you are on a pedestal. Not your fault – others put you there.

Since you are on a pedestal, you are scrutinized more closely than other teams.

Part of the problem is that “haters” of “powerhouse teams” sometimes DO see these teams fail to conduct themselves with grace – or even fail to work within the rules. Powerhouse teams are on a pedestal and what people see and experience becomes multiplied both good and bad.

Everyone here has asked how we can change our FIRST culture. Perhaps this might work:

What if immediately after an incident (say after a booing during a match introduction that is reported to the “powerhouse team”) some members of that team went directly to the “haters” and began a conversation or invited the haters to come to their pit to share ideas? What if the powerhouse team members came by and asked “hater” team members about their robot and their experience? What if they really made an attempt to show the “haters” who they really are? What if they actually helped them compete?

This year it is directly possible – lend your minibot.

What if each powerhouse team adopted just one of the “haters” and worked to change their mind? What if each powerhouse team partnered with a team that was really struggling and worked to build their program?

Is it going to far to ask if powerhouse teams considered – perhaps after they’ve already won a regional or two – picking a weaker team, a “hater” team to be in an alliance and really worked together?

If you think that the “powerhouse teams” shouldn’t have to work to change the attitude of others – you are wrong. Those who are fortunate enough to be part of the teams that are really great are the ones who are MOST able to bring about change. They are on the pedestal and everyone is looking to them.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

rcmolloy

14-03-2011, 21:38

Let me preface this by saying that I DO think less of teams like 1114 for not building their own robot. I will always be more proud of, and cheer more for a student built robot.

The problem is that the students DO build their own robot. They don't just sit there while their mentors do all the work. They collab with them and then designs are made up. Students do all the dirty work with mentors giving them the tools and help if they need it.

Just because the team has leverage to waterjets, cnc machines, lathes, and mills doesn't mean the robot isn't student built.

Grim Tuesday

14-03-2011, 21:40

The problem is that the students DO build their own robot. They don't just sit there while their mentors do all the work. They collab with them and then designs are made up. Students do all the dirty work with mentors giving them the tools and help if they need it.

Just because the team has leverage to waterjets, cnc machines, lathes, and mills doesn't mean the robot isn't student built.

Exactly my point. I don't think that 1114 is a team that would do that. Therefore, I don't think poorly of them.

But if a team did do that, then I would.

Barngirl425

14-03-2011, 21:53

Being on an entirely student run team, the student/ mentor relationship is important and I wish my team had it but we do not. But that isnt what matters. In life there are always going to be people with more resources, money and help then you. All that matters is can you over come it? Yes you may have to have longer work hours and yes your bot might me simpler then others but can it go out and compete? And are people learning while building it? If yes then there are no issues.

Having worked with 1114 at Brunswick Eruption last year what I saw of them was all positive. They were professional and so organized it made everything easier. I saw students working on the bot and mentors over seeing and directing them the way it should be. Congratulations team 1114 and Good Luck to you in the future!

Zflash

14-03-2011, 21:56

Many teams are competing at bag and tag events this year and in the past and probably even more in the future. These bag and tag teams are guided under Gracious Professionalism to bag there robot by the rules and not open it until the rules permit. Everyone in the community allows GP to be the determining factor as to whether teams are abiding by the rules.

When a team says that they are student/mentor built no matter the percentage, GP seems to be thrown out the window for some people in FRC. They look at a well engineered good looking robot and say that a group og high school students could not have done that. And they are right it was done by a collaboration of students and Adult mentors doing what they should be doing mentoring and learning.

We experienced some discrimination this year at Pittsburgh as well. We were called "rebels" by one of the Safety judges behind our backs when he found out our team was from South Carolina. Unknown to him he told a fellow volunteer from South Carolina this. (Which is how we found out)

Although our incident was not as public it hurts. I hope that this does not happen again to teams like 1114. And certainly hope it was not due to them being Canadian as one of our largest sponsors headquarters is located there.

And on a personal note...sorry to Karthik for not having spare banebot motors we definitely should have brought are unused KOPs however it did not seem to effect you guys in the long run. Congrats on another win.

sNeff

14-03-2011, 21:58

**This represents my personal experience and opinions, not those of GRT 192**

~

To risk an unproductive foray down a well-traveled path...

In my past experiences as a student on 192, I have noticed that the students directly involved in designing and building the robot or modeling the animation or otherwise contributing to team success in a very direct way [includes sponsorships etc] are an order of magnitude more interested and inspired by their time on the team than students who rarely contribute. One of my pet projects in leadership was finding the students on the 'outskirts' of the team and getting them involved throughout the year.

Of course being a student on GRT wouldn't be nearly as much fun or nearly as inspirational without the wide mentor and parent support we enjoy. GRT's robots are 100% student built. Our high-quality workmanship is a point of pride, and our team-members have put in the hours of practice to achieve it. We also have a machine shop better than most college shops, the culmination of 15 years of unwavering dedication from our lead mentor, and a number of mentors who make sure we don't hurt ourselves and break tools while we work.

This informs my opinion that a truly 100%-mentor-funded-built-and-troubleshot robot (that I doubt exists in modern FRC) is a disservice to the students on that team. As a team is more and more mentor driven I find it harder and harder to support them unconditionally. It's appropriate to have a happy medium, and I suspect many teams are closer to 'medium' than they would like to believe.

On-topic:

Pittsburgh's incidents are embarrassing and a darn shame. Some of my friends on a certain local team have experienced the same kind of ostracism, at last year's Nationals no less. ("How could a bunch of high school girls put together a bot that successful?" when I would love to recruit some of them for my old team.) I was shocked when I heard about it--I had no idea that kind of thing was going on, and if I see it in the future I'll try to step in.

I disagree with OP's emphasis on 'professionalism', primarily for the same reason I disagree with an emphasis on 'tolerance'--tolerating something still implies that the tolerated thing is bad. Taking the 'gracious' out of 'professionalism' would solve very little, after all. ;)
Unfortunately I don't have a better replacement in mind yet, making this criticism pointless (don't criticize until you have a solution, right?); I will continue to think about it (probably after Finals are over this quarter) and try to post something more constructive later.

BandChick

14-03-2011, 22:13

I want to restate that this negativity is NOT in FIRST just about who built the robot (student, mentor, student/mentor). It exists in many other aspects of FIRST. This discussion has become about the disparity of resources between "powerhouse" and "other" teams, but that isn't what John's point is about. It's about correcting the behavior, and 1114 is just his example.

If it helps, I'll provide another example.
This year in NJ, 1089 was fortunate enough to finish in the Top 8. We had been scouted by several teams, and many more stopped by our pit both to lobby for us to pick them, and some to discuss picking us. When it came time for alliance selections, we knew the higher-seeded 2180 had intentions to pick us. BUT (while we have a great relationship with them) we also knew that the best alliance for our team did not include them. Politely, my alliance captain on the field declined the offer - and got booed for it.

We were lucky, however, to have Dave Lavery there doing alliance selections over the mic. He quickly explained that it was completely within our rights to choose to decline for any number of reasons, hushed the teams, then announced us as the #6 seed, citing "Well, now we know why they declined." My student was already upset about having to decline 2180 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1035815&postcount=136), and when he left the field with our alliance, he was clearly bothered by the crowd's reaction.

It wasn't the only incident we experienced in NJ this year, and we are certainly not a powerhouse team (yet). Several students on another team were accusing our team of "not deserving to be there" and "not building a good enough robot to be where we were seeded." Now, this didn't happen directly to our faces, but just a few rows behind us. The problem WAS addressed by the mentors on that team, and for that I thank them.

What I want to stress is that this can happen to ANY team in FIRST, and it shouldn't.

Andrew Schreiber

14-03-2011, 22:50

Every team at the regional I'm going to mention will remember this happening.

Gary Voshol concocted a April fools day prank to play on us Michigan teams - on April 1st of last year, during an event, he announced an emergency rule update. He told us FIRST had released a rule update stating that they believed it was against the spirit of the game for a robot to lock into the tower, so no one could stay there more than 5 seconds.

Of course, this was a jab at 469, who everyone in the district (and the country) knew had an incredible robot.

The number of people who cheered sickened and angered me - I actually yelled a word in anger that I wasn't too proud of at the time. A good chunk of the students at that venue were more than happy to have the dreams of a team crushed rather than play against them.

I suspect it would have met the same response anywhere in the country.

This starts with the mentors. It's up to us to stamp it out. It's up to us to make it right. It's up to us to guide our team members and remind them that if it were OUR game breaking robot, we'd be devastated. I wonder how many teams talked about that occurrence. I know we did.

You mean the same robot that they cheered when it tipped over in auton? That was... not a proud weekend for FIRST imho.

Regarding the April Fool's joke last year, we had no idea the crowd would react that way. We thought it would cause the team to sweat for a couple of minutes, and then we'd all share a good laugh, as had happened with other pranks in prior years. Had we known the reaction would be so negative against the team we would never have done it. I immediately went to the team and apologized, and if I never apologized publicly please accept this post as that apology.

Not to harp on something negative but I did want to point out that even a joke turned out to cause a lot of bad feelings and anger. I know for a fact some people lost a lot respect for people as a result of that little gag. Be very careful what you say in jest.

The reserved nature is typical, but I wouldn't call it "stand-offish". We definitely shared details about our robot to many teams who came by to visit. There was definitely no reluctance to show off information to US teams.

I can confirm this, 1114 has never (in my experience) shied away from telling any details about their robot. My suggestion would be to talk to a student though. (I think it is significantly more inspiring to have a student explain a system rather than an engineer)

148 will be sporting "Be Professional" buttons for the rest of our events this year.

If you wouldn't mind sending one or two of those over by the Kettering table in scholarship row I would appreciate it.

And now that I've replied to every post in this thread... John, I have had numerous talks with Karthik about this topic and the utter disrespect that powerhouses get from students who just don't get it. I have also come to the conclusion that it just isn't these students' fault. FIRST is such an alien concept to anyone outside of it and unless someone teaches them that you don't want to BEAT 1114 you want to BE 1114 they will never know. I don't blame students for bad attitudes, I blame mentors who don't discourage them. I will admit that I am not exactly a ray of sunshine all the time but I will say that I tried my best to remind my students that this is about inspiration and we should celebrate excellence instead of shunning it.

BrendanB

14-03-2011, 22:57

Let me preface this by saying that I DO think less of teams like 1114 for not building their own robot. I will always be more proud of, and cheer more for a student built robot.

How can you say that when you haven't been to their shop? A 100% student robot means that they are using their coaches and mentors to sign the paper work instead of using the to their fullest potential and learning from the experts which is the goal of FIRST.

mahumnut

14-03-2011, 22:57

I posted this as a comment on the "haters" article (http://blog.iamjvn.com/2011/02/open-letter-to-haters.html), but I thought it would be better spread on CD

I agree with most of what you said, however your striving for excellence being equated to a desire to win seemed a little off to me when you later commented on how your team is founded on the learning/growing experience and fueled by student commitment (which I whole-heartedly support).
I came across this post from your culture change article which I completely agree with, however, I believe a lot of the problems you described arose out of the competition centered mentality that FIRST currently employs, something I gleaned from this post of yours. Within FIRST, as a competition, I would say it's hard to disagree that teams with more members/resources/mentors do have an upper-hand; this being said however, in the aspect of FIRST that I believe should be the predominant focus, building the best robot you can while learning and growing as much as possible along the way, members/resources/mentors really don't have any influence, it really does all boil down to the student's eagerness to learn and commitment to the program. Because of this, when I read that your team members are actively involved with your mentors and do put in the time, I am overjoyed, and your feats of engineering really are stunning each year, however, when I read that you are fueled out of a desire to win, especially right after reading your culture change article, I can't help but be a little disappointed .
So maybe instead of your goal being a "winning robot" maybe it should be "the best robot we could build" with the "winning" part being an indication or reward that follows because of this goal being employed.
Note that I agree/support everything else you wrote about

artdutra04

14-03-2011, 23:12

... Politely, my alliance captain on the field declined the offer - and got booed for it. ...Was it a "boo!" or more of an surprised "ohh?!"?

BrendanB

14-03-2011, 23:15

Was it a "boo!" or more of an surprised "ohh?!"?
There are a lot who boo and I heard it at WPI.

I could never decline and offer because there was better teams! That is amazing that you would do that!

Cory

14-03-2011, 23:15

when I read that you are fueled out of a desire to win, especially right after reading your culture change article, I can't help but be a little disappointed .

Why should you not want to win?

Why do we celebrate mediocrity as a culture?

Why do we look down on people who have competitive drive?

FIRST is a lot of things, but at it's heart it is a robotics competition. When we are at a competition we're there to win. There's a lot of other great things we get out of the actual competition like meeting other teams, learning about other teams robots, etc, but it IS a competition and if you aren't there to compete and try to win, why bother?

A desire to be the best you can at everything you do should be what all teams strive to teach their students, in my not so humble opinion.

Basel A

14-03-2011, 23:19

You mean the same robot that they cheered when it tipped over in auton? That was... not a proud weekend for FIRST imho.

Our team recorded that match on video, and unfortunately for a few people audio was taken as well. I am STILL pissed at those who were cheering, every time I think of it. It's pathetic. I don't care whether we were facing them or not, and I'm glad they beat us in that match, because we didn't deserve to win. There was the same issue earlier when the Joke Update was announced. I just don't have the words to describe my intense disdain for those individuals...

Elliot191

14-03-2011, 23:36

Why should you not want to win?

Why do we celebrate mediocrity as a culture?

Why do we look down on people who have competitive drive?

FIRST is a lot of things, but at it's heart it is a robotics competition. When we are at a competition we're there to win. There's a lot of other great things we get out of the actual competition like meeting other teams, learning about other teams robots, etc, but it IS a competition and if you aren't there to compete and try to win, why bother?

A desire to be the best you can at everything you do should be what all teams strive to teach their students, in my not so humble opinion.

This comment saddens me. What many people are failing to see is that the competition is a byproduct of the mission of FIRST. To even question why a team would build a robot for anything other than competition, who to imply that every team should be driven by an insatiable need for winning is feeding into the attitudes which FIRST is against.

Let me reiterate. It's not about the competition. FIRST is simply about spreading interest in science and technology . the competition is a byproduct, one of many tools employed by the organization. But competition is not at the heart. If a team builds a robot to field, even builds a robot that won't move, they've all won, because they are all taking part in the solution. If a group is working to inspire students to go into science and technology, then how they do in the competition is dust in the wind, because it's the building and long hours to accomplish a collective goal that are going to stick with them, not the scores of their 3rd qualifying match at FLR.

Also, how can you imply that if a team isn't winning, they are mediocre? any person involved in building a FIRST robot is far from mediocre. The advanced systems, design techniques, teamwork etc. is far from what society would consider mediocre.

That being said, I'd love to win. Anybody would. But in the long run, winning and losing are the same thing. At the end of the day, every team in FRC has accomplished something amazing in the sculpting of the next generation of leaders.

Andrew Schreiber

14-03-2011, 23:36

I just don't have the words to describe my intense disdain for those individuals...

I did... and I proclaimed them... not a proud moment. Don't learn those words.

Chris is me

14-03-2011, 23:40

There are a lot who boo and I heard it at WPI.

That was IMO an "ooooh", especially considering how reactive it was. Large crowds can't impulsively decide to "boo" that quickly, and the tone is a lot different.

Cory

14-03-2011, 23:41

This comment saddens me. What many people are failing to see is that the competition is a byproduct of the mission of FIRST. To even question why a team would build a robot for anything other than competition, who to imply that every team should be driven by an insatiable need for winning is feeding into the attitudes which FIRST is against.

Let me reiterate. It's not about the competition. FIRST is simply about spreading interest in science and technology . the competition is a byproduct, one of many tools employed by the organization. But competition is not at the heart. If a team builds a robot to field, even builds a robot that won't move, they've all won, because they are all taking part in the solution. If a group is working to inspire students to go into science and technology, then how they do in the competition is dust in the wind, because it's the building and long hours to accomplish a collective goal that are going to stick with them, not the scores of their 3rd qualifying match at FLR.

Also, how can you imply that if a team isn't winning, they are mediocre? any person involved in building a FIRST robot is far from mediocre. The advanced systems, design techniques, teamwork etc. is far from what society would consider mediocre.

That being said, I'd love to win. Anybody would. But in the long run, winning and losing are the same thing. At the end of the day, every team in FRC has accomplished something amazing in the sculpting of the next generation of leaders.

You're completely misrepresenting my position. I specifically said when AT the competition, we are there to win, because it is indeed a competition.

I never said that the whole point of our team is to win. Those are two totally different things.

CassCity2081

14-03-2011, 23:49

You're completely misrepresenting my position. I specifically said when AT the competition, we are there to win, because it is indeed a competition.

I never said that the whole point of our team is to win. Those are two totally different things.

I have to agree here. FIRST is a great organization that has had an amazing impact on most of our lives. We are all familiar with FIRST's real message.

On that note, we are still at a competition and should not settle for anything other than our best. Just because a team wants to win a regional or see themselves on Einstein doesnt mean that they have missed the true message of FIRST.

Mr. Van

14-03-2011, 23:51

I see that this discussion has drifted to become another "mentor built vs. student built" thread. I'm sure that this is not what John was talking about.

I believe that at the heart of the matter is what FIRST is about.

Inspiration.

Sometimes people are inspired by that which is incredible. Other times they are discouraged. Once I saw 148's video, I must admit that my first reaction (after "WOW!!) was "how can we compete against that?"

And then came the questions: "how did you...?" "Is that a....?"

And then cam the answers. Detailed answers. Things that I started saying "humm... we can try to do that next year". (And my regard and respect for people like JVN continued to go up.)

I was being inspired.

But getting over that hurdle can be difficult if you focus on the competition. This may be part of what some people these so-called "haters" are feeling sore about. There is a clear if indeed fine line between mentors who make their program about winning a robotics competition and mentors who make their program about inspiring and changing the lives of their team members and others. The fact that the latter can be accomplished by making it seem that you are doing the former is one of the great things about competitive robotics. It is why many of us keep doing what we do.

I will once again put the idea out there. If you are part of one of the teams that others "hate on" then YOU go out and change their mind. It might be a greater challenge than building a blue-banner robot, but it can be just as rewarding - perhaps even more so.

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

KelliV

14-03-2011, 23:56

Fantastic post John.

I think that something we should try to do with our students is not ignore this thread by simply saying "this isn't my team, we would never do that" and moving on, but rather, print up a copy of JVN's post and show it to your students and discuss not only proper behavior, but TEACH them how respond to people booing and talking poorly to people around them in a positive manner.

I will be discussing proper behavior with my FLL kids tomorrow night and hope that the rest of the FIRST community goes over it as well.

JaneYoung

15-03-2011, 00:15

That was IMO an "ooooh", especially considering how reactive it was. Large crowds can't impulsively decide to "boo" that quickly, and the tone is a lot different.

And then there's moos. I had no idea a large crowd could moo so loud and so quickly.

It was one of those Holy Cow moments.

Jane

George Nishimura

15-03-2011, 00:16

That was IMO an "ooooh", especially considering how reactive it was. Large crowds can't impulsively decide to "boo" that quickly, and the tone is a lot different.

I was an alliance captain, and I'm pretty sure it was an 'ooh' in total jest. A decline always heightens the drama a little bit. Plus it stopped a 177-40 alliance, whether it was going to happen or not....

Akash Rastogi

15-03-2011, 00:16

NJ when 1089 declined an alliance I heard boo's. That pissed me off quite a bit because people think it is supposed to be insulting or something if you decline.

BandChick

15-03-2011, 00:21

There are a lot who boo and I heard it at WPI.

I could never decline and offer because there was better teams! That is amazing that you would do that!

Art, Chris, Brendan, etc. Just to clarify, it was a bit of both in NJ.
I took the crowd's reaction as just shock of "oohs", but it was my student (and a few others) who came off the field and said he heard booing as well.

And thank you for the compliment. Our scouting team and head coach had a long discussion before we sent our alliance captain down to the field. We debated what the right decision was, because we didn't want to burn any bridges. It came down to a matter of trust. I trusted my scouters and the data they collected, they trusted my judgment, and our coach trusted the team to make the decision that was right for this year's machine. Ultimately, we believed we could build a stronger alliance as a captain, and we had a great run with 1647 and 102 in elims.

2180 is a great team, and we certainly look forward to working with them in the long run. And no, their team was not part of the crowd that chastised my captain.

[/end tangent]

Elliot191

15-03-2011, 00:25

You're completely misrepresenting my position. I specifically said when AT the competition, we are there to win, because it is indeed a competition.

I never said that the whole point of our team is to win. Those are two totally different things.

You also specifically said that FIRST was at it's heart a robotics competition.

Chris is me

15-03-2011, 00:28

You also specifically said that FIRST was at it's heart a robotics competition.

That's because it is, hence the name FIRST Robotics Competition.

Grim Tuesday

15-03-2011, 00:31

Elliot191

15-03-2011, 00:32

That's because it is, hence the name FIRST Robotics Competition.

FRC is a division of FIRST in which we participate. It's not the mission. Like i said, the competition is a byproduct of the mission. FIRST-For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. No where do i see the word competition.

Chris is me

15-03-2011, 00:33

FRC is a division of FIRST in which we participate. It's not the mission. Like i said, the competition is a byproduct of the mission. FIRST-For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. No where do i see the word competition.

Okay, FRC Team instead of FIRST Team then. He used the term interchangeably and the argument about terminology is kind of pedantic.

Grim Tuesday

15-03-2011, 00:34

FRC is a division of FIRST in which we participate. It's not the mission. Like i said, the competition is a byproduct of the mission. FIRST-For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology. No where do i see the word competition.

FRC: the C in FRC is competition.

Competition doesn't mean rudeness, though. I certainly don't see that mentioned anywhere!

Michael Corsetto

15-03-2011, 00:42

Regardless, there are immature people in this world, and unfortunately there are some who choose to join FIRST teams.

If FIRST isn't here to transform the minds of these "immature people" into gracious professionals, inspired by competitive robotics to pursue STEM education, I don't know what it is for.

The goal isn't to keep the "bad" kids out. The goal is to take the "bad" out of kids, thereby transforming OUR culture.

Elliot191

15-03-2011, 00:43

JVN

15-03-2011, 00:48

Jonathan Norris

15-03-2011, 00:52

I might not be adding much to this thread, but I want to add my support for 1114 and all they do.

When I started my FIRST experience back in 2004 and 2005 I heard the same voices that criticized 1114. I quickly got to know the students and mentors involved in 1114 and figured out no its not that they are doing anything the wrong way, its just that they work harder and are more professional then we are. That was really my turning point in FIRST, thats when I figured it out, 1114 has inspired me throughout the years to build better robots, and build a better team. I've got to know alot of the people involved in 1114, and once you get to know them you wonder how can anyone hate this group of people?

I've known for years that 1114 has haters, I've heard the haters complaining about them year after year at GTR. This year I hope the FIRST community will help us take a stand against the negativity thrown their way (and the way of other powerhouse teams), and appreciate how much we can learn and be inspired by them.

lscime

15-03-2011, 00:53

I just want to say that this is an amazing thread, and should probably be stickied. Actually, on second thought, if it gets stickied, then noone will read it, so don't.

Regardless, there are immature people in this world, and unfortunately there are some who choose to join FIRST teams. What astounds me, is that I noticed nothing of these goings on at FLR. Or in fact, were there any mentioned beyond NJ and WPI regionals. Everyone should remember just how good every single other regional was, because they were.

Please don't imply that Pittsburgh is the "bad" regional. Such an assumption isn't fair to all of the teams and participants who WERE graciously professional. Pittsburgh has just been chosen as an example to enable a discussion of a larger issue.

Thank you,
-Luke

Andrew Schreiber

15-03-2011, 01:07

FIRST existed before its competitions did. And it will continue to exist after they end. To say that competition is at the center of FIRST is to completely overlook all of the other things they do to inspire students.

FIRST uses competition as a tool to inspire students. Otherwise it would be FIRST Robotics Expo and we might see some cool bots doing some cool stuff but it would be just like another science fair. But don't take it from me:

I would ask you to please focus just for a couple of moments on something that i think is really, really important. Why we do this.

From the beginning, we put FIRST together because of a couple fundamental principles.
We believe that in a free society you get what you celebrate. And we could see, when we started this thing 15, 16 years ago, we celebrate sports. Nothing wrong with it, we celebrate entertainment. There is nothing wrong with that.

But in our culture somehow they became so big they were crowding out particularly for lots of kids and particularly women and minorities, they were crowding out the opportunity to celebrate science, technology, inventing, creating, thinking, solving problems.

It was crowding out for these kids the opportunity to be prepared by developing the skills and getting an education that will allow them to be the next generation of people that will create solutions, cure diseases, solve energy and environmental problems.

And we said we've got to compete for the minds and hearts of kids with a culture that is just sort of gone awry.

But we stole from the books of the world of sports because it's so powerful and we said we're going to create a competition that is every bit as exciting and rewarding and every bit as accessible as bouncing a ball or standing on a stage.

As you can see by our growth, it's worked. But sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for because you get it. And as we all know, the world of sports and entertainment have trappings with them that we don't want to have. Winning at any cost. The kind of behavior we see from a lot of our sports role models. The kind of behavior we see from the world of entertainment and some of our Hollywood role models.

It's not what we want.

So how do we balance the fact that every year our sporting event gets better and more exciting and tougher? How do we balance the fact that we want to compete by making things so exciting that we are the ultimate sport, but that we never end up with the trappings that I think are so unfortunately associated with those other things?

And maybe it's by every year reminding ourselves that unlike other sports, we have a much bigger picture to deal with.

You've heard some of the people talk about some of what that is.

But FIRST sort of wants to be what the NFL or the Olympic committee is to those kinds of activities, we want to be that common ground and coalition for an activity that, frankly, has way, way, way more serious and important consequences than how well we bounce balls.
So in a few minutes you'll start this new season. You're going to see an incredibly exciting competition. You'll be focused on building great machines. You're going to lose a lot of sleep. You're going to be hating me, and Dave, and Vince, and Woodie, for diabolical, frustrating things.

But I would ask everybody, no matter how much you get into the robotics of it all, to remember that again unlike other sports, we're really not about how many points you get.
The end game in basketball is how many points you get. That's what matters. That's whatever -- you have a skill set of whatever is that particular sport bouncing a ball. There is not a lot of other collateral places you can use that ball-bouncing skill. Winning matters.

In FIRST, the skill sets you develop, the ability to understand problems and how to solve them, you begin to understand the power of mathematics and reasoning and logic, analytics, the consequence of participating in FIRST you start to think about career opportunities, you start to think about how you can change the world. That's way more important than whether this robot bounced the ball or didn't bounce the ball.

So I’m literally begging everybody that participates to remember the big picture of FIRST.

The robots, no offense, are just a vehicle. FIRST isn't about robotics, it is not about building that machine or that much. It is about building an understanding of what is possible for people that are prepared, that have the power and tools, science and technology and thinking. FIRST is about building relationships between kids and serious adults.

People have created our standard of living, quality of life. It's about creating hopefully the next generation of kids that will keep raising the bar and making the world a better place for everybody. The robots help make it fun and attract people but unlike other sports, our mission is way, way bigger than the points and so I hope no matter how intense it all gets, you all remember that as Woodie always says, imagine your grandmother is watching everything you do.

Remember, it's about gracious professionalism. Remember that what we're doing here in five or 10 or 15 years may be what inspired somebody to cure cancer or build an engine that doesn't pollute. In that year nobody will remember which robot won or lost but I hope in that year everybody that ever participated in FIRST will remember back to the whole experience and remember back to the relationships we've all created and really believes that everybody is a winner if we do this right.
(Courtesy of NASA) (Full Transcript - http://robotics.nasa.gov/events/first/08transcript.php)

It is about celebrating one of the few professions that CREATE value rather than just shuffling it around. This event isn't about who wins or who loses, it isn't about who built or designed whatever. This is about showing students what a real engineer does because most of them, as strange as this may seem to us, have never met one.

If you still think that student run teams are better there isn't much more I can do to tell you how wrong you are other than say that FIRST has had this issue for at LEAST the 8 yrs I've been in FRC and done nothing about it. Give it up, every team is run differently, stop saying your way is better than any other way.

Qwertyu8

15-03-2011, 01:14

JVN,

I also have witnessed the lack of professionalism. To keep things simple at a regional competition i witnessed a strategy aimed at disloging a minibot by ramming from a host robot. I have no problem with this strategy, however the teams conduct afterwards was where they to me lost their professionalism. After the minibot was dislogged the they started moving as if they were to continue blocking, but decided that a G48 was in order. They then stopped their defence and started scoring. Thankfully the team was able to partially mend the minibot from what i could tell, but the incident affected deployment of that minibot for the rest of the competition. This is hypocracy because the team had freshly started a Gracious Professionalism Campaign.

I am truely sorry that 1114 had to suffer what it did. I guess there are those who can not handle the pressures of FIRST in a productive way. I personally can not wait till more video is up of the beautiful robots produced in Team IFI.

Qwertyu8

davidthefat

15-03-2011, 01:37

The first thing Mr Amir said to me when I went up to him to ask him about their autonomy was that the robot was coded by his students. I said to myself in my head, "how many times does this man get accused of doing everything that he has to say that out of impulse?" I am a very analytical guy and I catch on subtle things such as those. Sure I never said that I did not believe that his students did not program it, I merely just asked how they did it, whether it was line trackers or some other way.

I know how it feels to get hated upon. During our rival game, I went to the rival's side of the stands and I over heard the people saying that they lost because our team was half Juniors. I personally was ticked off by that statement. First because I was a Junior on JV, and the other thing was that people tend to find an excuse or a scapegoat for their failures. I can say that all you can do is blame yourself.

EricH

15-03-2011, 02:06

So back to the topic...
Can we change the culture within FIRST to where it is no longer okay to make mean remarks about a team on YouTube just because you're jealous of them?

How can we teach teams to use their jealousy to raise the bar instead of try to lower the ceiling?

How do we instill a culture of professionalism?
Can we? I certainly hope so, and think so.

But how? Well, we could respond to every post/comment with a "You don't know the team, please withhold this type of judgment until you do" or some similar device. But that can also make us look bad.

Could we simply ignore actions and comments like that? NO. We cannot afford to. If ignored, they will get worse. Sometimes it might work--but only if the person is a troll looking for a response.

What we can do is to respond appropriately to actions and comments of that form: Invite those making those comments to join us for a while, or ask if we can work with them for a time--the remainder of the event, or a build week(end), or as long as they like, as long as necessary or until one or both decide that differences are irreconcilable. Maybe even trade a few members for a short time, or arrange for the experience to happen with another similar "powerhouse" team. Fight fire with water, if you will. This works especially well if the team making the invitation is the team that has been accused/badmouthed, etc., but may also work for a similar-level team.

If a team opts to accept that offer, ideally both teams benefit. One more team wants to be like the powerhouse, which keeps the powerhouse innovating and the level of competition climbing. One more team "gets it". Two teams become friends. Ideas are exchanged. Teams are exposed to some of the inner workings of other teams.

If a team opts to decline the offer, OTOH, then that's their choice. There isn't a limit to how many times the offer can be extended.

All teams should be reminded of <G60>: Be civil while in the arena. You can't be penalized for off-field actions in a match, but you can be held accountable by field personnel. (paraphrased) I would also say that other teams may help said field personnel in some cases. I'm not going to suggest any methods, but there are a few that could be employed, most of them less than gracious and/or taking way too long to implement (i.e. multiple years instead of weeks/months/one year).

Zuelu562

15-03-2011, 08:08

While I'm not particularly fond of the idea of a so called "mentorbot", I understand that team circumstances may warrant the move.

What I frown upon specifically is a team who moves to a "mentorbot" and completely tune out the students involved, and just hand them a "perfect" robot. I don't like the notion, and I would advise any team not to do so.

However, I was reminded by my driver, participating in FIRST as far back as '02 (I was our coach this year) that those circumstances are not a reason to bash a team. I realized several days after our competition, although I did so only in private conversations, I did bash a team I believed of doing that. I realized that that is no reason to do that, especially in FIRST. I know I will take that experience with me through the rest of life, and definitely in my future professional (TM JVN) communications to keep that in mind.

Only JVN could say what he said so elegantly. Thanks for blowing the whistle good sir.

Vikesrock

15-03-2011, 08:14

What I frown upon specifically is a team who moves to a "mentorbot" and completely tune out the students involved, and just hand them a "perfect" robot. I don't like the notion, and I would advise any team not to do so.

I really don't think this team exists. If they do exist I'm pretty sure they aren't the "powerhouses" everyone is talking about. In fact they are probably not that good at all.

Taylor

15-03-2011, 08:14

Although I don't think it applies, the metaphor of athletics is constantly applied to FRC.
So I'll go with that.
If an athlete is very talented/skilled/athletic, people instantly assume that athlete is on steroids/HGH/blood doping. This is so pervasive, it goes outside the traditional popular sports into auto racing, bicycling, even horses and dogs. It doesn't stop at professional sports - think of the East German women swimmers or Chinese gymnasts at their respective Olympic games.
Robots don't have steroids. Thorough inspections certify that. The fallback kneejerk reaction is Adults.
It has been ingrained in us all that every great drama must have a villain. "You're either with us or you're against us." "If you're with us, then you're against them." "If you like A, then you must hate B." Sports are built around rivalries - Packers vs. Vikes, Sox vs. Yanks, Buckeyes vs. Wolverines. To be a fan of your team, you must hate the opponents.
It is critical to our continued growth and success to recognize, and to make others realize, THERE ARE NO OPPONENTS. In the qualifications, alliance partners are (sort of) random. In the eliminations, there are only the good and the other good. We're all part of the same team - it's sometimes called Team Kamen, sometimes called Team Flowers.

Carolyn_Grace

15-03-2011, 08:27

So back to the topic...
Can we change the culture within FIRST to where it is no longer okay to make mean remarks about a team on YouTube just because you're jealous of them?

How can we teach teams to use their jealousy to raise the bar instead of try to lower the ceiling?

How do we instill a culture of professionalism?

It starts from the top.
FIRST Employees and Officials must demand it of themselves and of each other.
Volunteers must demand it of themselves and of each other.
Mentors must demand it of themselves and of each other.
Everyone needs to keep each other in line....we are all adults and we should expect respect, no matter the circumstance.

And then Mentors must instill this culture of professionalism in their students.
This will not be easy for all students to accept, but that's part of being a mentor. We aren't here to just teach them how to build robots or write essays and give presentations. We aren't here to just be buddies with our students. We aren't here to make sure that they're having a great time all of the time. Our role is not strictly of "coach"...we are Mentors. Our students watch us, on and off the playing field, in and our of the shop, to see how we interact with other people. It is our job, as Mentors, to enforce a positive attitude, to encourage the respect of other teams and members of those teams, and to live that respect ourselves.

It also helps to talk about it. Talk about attitudes in your team meetings, talk about how to handle it if someone is lashing out at you or your team. And talk about how negative attitudes towards other teams are not acceptable.

I've been thinking a lot about the Culture of FIRST. Within that Culture, there are a lot of different kinds of sub-cultures, depending on team's philosophies and values. These sub-cultures may not always align with each other, and they may not also have all of the same goals, but that's part of the beauty of FIRST: it mirrors how the real world is. Not all successful businesses have the same values or goals either, but they learn from each other through their interactions.

Understand that teams are all different from each other.
Respect and learn from these differences, whether you agree with them or not.
Do the best that you can on your own team with a good attitude: that is as inspirational as a robot that goes undefeated all season long.

Brandon Holley

15-03-2011, 08:49

What we can do is to respond appropriately to actions and comments of that form: Invite those making those comments to join us for a while, or ask if we can work with them for a time--the remainder of the event, or a build week(end), or as long as they like, as long as necessary or until one or both decide that differences are irreconcilable. Maybe even trade a few members for a short time, or arrange for the experience to happen with another similar "powerhouse" team. Fight fire with water, if you will. This works especially well if the team making the invitation is the team that has been accused/badmouthed, etc., but may also work for a similar-level team.

If a team opts to accept that offer, ideally both teams benefit. One more team wants to be like the powerhouse, which keeps the powerhouse innovating and the level of competition climbing. One more team "gets it". Two teams become friends. Ideas are exchanged. Teams are exposed to some of the inner workings of other teams.

Not that any of the "powerhouse" teams would not take up such a proposal, but why should they have to?? We're now saying that on top of everything else most of these teams do, they now must prove to teams who question their capabilities that they do it "respectfully"?? I just don't think thats fair to those teams. However, like I said, I doubt any of them would turn down the request.

It's certainly something that must be dealt with. It will require people to speak up and make somewhat awkward situations in times they may usually do or say nothing. Despite all of this, human nature will still run rampant.
The nature to say "wow, our robot was not competitive, it must be because those other teams cheated."

This kind of attitude will be very difficult to deal with because for most teams its never stated publicly or even out loud to other team members. This is where we must emphasize that powerhouse teams need to be celebrated and not persecuted. Like I said, it will have to be on an individual basis, we're all responsible for shifting the culture.

-Brando

Taylor

15-03-2011, 08:59

Not that any of the "powerhouse" teams would not take up such a proposal, but why should they have to?? We're now saying that on top of everything else most of these teams do, they now must prove to teams who question their capabilities that they do it "respectfully"?? I just don't think thats fair to those teams. However, like I said, I doubt any of them would turn down the request.

I would argue that some teams already do this. Displays in pits, community outreach projects, rookie team mentorship, live blogs and webcasts all display this.
In every reveal video I've seen this year, there has been a collage of still photos of people working on designs or parts or assemblies. I would estimate that in less than 4% of these pictures, a non-pre-college-student is the one holding the tools. The evidence is out there, people just choose to ignore it to suit their conspiracy fantasies.
Given, JVN does blog a lot about himself spending a lot of time in front of his CAD machine, but I don't recall him ever saying he was alone, or the designs were solely by him. I rather got the feeling he was working with students, improving upon their ideas.

colt527

15-03-2011, 09:45

I haven't read through the whole thread yet, but I was a volunteer on the field every day at the Pittsburgh regional and wanted to put in my input.

First, congratulations to 1114, 1503 and 3492. You guys were great!

I was a first hand witness to one of these types of incidents regarding 1114. So, these types of things do happen. The incident I witnessed involved tempers flaring after a team was eliminated. We have all been there. In the heat of the moment and we let our emotions get the best of us. It is a very tough challenge to try and change the culture so much that tempers will not get the best of teams. However, I believe this change is necessary. It needs to start with the mentors of the team and filter down to the students. The culture of coopertition and gracious professionalism needs to be preached and practiced by the teams early and often.

This is a huge undertaking and I don't think it will be solved by 1 CD thread. Every once in a while it pops up, not much happens, and then it goes back to the same-old, same-old. I don't know yet what this action needs to be, but I think we should have a conversation where we talk about possible solutions and how to actually get them done.

I also want to mention that I don't think Pittsburgh specifically should get a bad wrap from this. This was the first time I had ever been to the regional and the overall reception and attitude of most people was great. It was a super fun regional. However, there were definitely things said and done by people that should never happen and are totally unacceptable. In all the situations, it seemed like the bad comments and actions did not represent the whole team, but a small group of students inside that team. I have also been to many other regionals and the problem seems to be widespread.

MrForbes

15-03-2011, 10:36

John--I don't know if you really understand how things look from the other end. Maybe you do, or maybe you did at one time, but forgot.

I read Neal's book "The New Cool". 2009 was a great year for the our team the NERDS, we had a lot of seniors who were very enthusiastic, and we built a pretty good working and looking robot, mostly out of plywood and plastic pipe (it even sported a couple pieces of wood 2x4). Reading Neal's book brought back the whole thing, our robot was similar to 1717's design, and we played against them in Los Angeles. They went on to dominate at the Davis regional, we went on to dominate at the Arizona regional. We both went to Championships, where we got lost in the shuffle and they lost to an unstoppable powerhouse alliance at the division level.

While reading the book, it occurred to me that our team put in maybe half as much effective effort as 1717 that year. From what I've seen of how some of the "powerhouse" teams operate, my guess is that 1717 put in about one quarter to one half as much effective effort as those teams. Yet we blew away the field at Arizona that year. With 1/4 to 1/8th as much as it takes to be a powerhouse. Where does that put the majority of teams?

The powerhouse teams not just incrementally "better" than most teams. This is an exponential phenomenon. The teams that look at your robot don't think to themselves "if we worked a little harder, we could do that!". They think "Gosh golly, those guys have magic!"

I called it "effective effort", and that's really what it is. There's some combination of brainpower, enthusiasm, experience, energy, and who knows what, that makes a powerhouse team. It's magic. Sure, all the other teams can get there....just like anyone can win the lottery.

We're human, we have emotions, and one of them is jealousy. When the chasm between what one team can do and what another can do is so great, there are bound to be resentments.

How we deal with these emotions is something we can control, and we have to control. Thanks for bringing this issue up in public where we can talk about how to deal with it.

Dmentor

15-03-2011, 10:39

Can we change the culture within FIRST to where it is no longer okay to make mean remarks about a team on YouTube just because you're jealous of them?

Maybe. Here are my proposed strategies:

Zero Tolerance – Organizational policy stating unacceptable behavior will not be tolerated. Clearly define the unacceptable behaviors AND define punishments for not following. Record and document each and every infraction. Make the punishment have teeth; I suggest individual and/or team exclusion from events for repeat documented offenses. Could include escalation scale and should include mediation framework to arbitrate inevitable he said/she said.

Systemic Training – Starting with kickoff and repeated at each event. Clearly communicate zero tolerance policy and what to do when it occurs; Suggest mandatory incident reporting (ie. if you see it report it). This helps offset the “guilt” associated with reporting since it is required and if there are umpteen reports of an incident you can bet it happened.

Vocal Majority – Stated many times already in this thread: Stand Up and Speak Up. Grab a handful of well respected mentors across teams and confront bad behavior. Most of all model good behavior and be proactive about recognizing good behavior from other teams.

More Social Socials – Get to know each other better. Suggest having socials on Thursday night before the competition. Do not use the “party” framework. Intentionally mix up team member and force them to learn and participate in games cross-team. It is harder to hate someone when you know them by name.

Proactive Graciousness – If you lose go tell each team on the opposing alliance “good job”. If you win go tell each team on the opposing alliance “good job”. In sports we shake hands after we compete win or lose, should be the same after each match.

Eliminate Anonymity – Also stated in this thread. Personal restraint is loosened when they think they won’t be caught. Establish positive credentials system to ensure that what is said publically on forums such as this can be attributed.

I don't believe morality can be legislated so these actions will never fully solve the problem; however, the focused approach should help minimize the offenses.

ShortBang

15-03-2011, 10:40

Having read all ten pages of this thread, there is something that I fell still needs to be added to the conversation.

While I have never had the honor of sharing the field with 1114 and many of the other "power teams" mentioned, and I admittedly hold a Yankee type jealousy towards them, I have shared the field with certain Nationally known and recognized teams and left the field feeling quite offended, my respect for that team gone.

This team had an adult mentor as their drive coach, who took control of the decisions from the get go. He would not listen to our teams input, for it was his way or the highway. The lack of respect he showed for Me as a student, my fellow students, and the students on the third team was completely appalling, and to me, reflected on the rest of his team.

At another competition, a mentor from the same team was waiting with our team in the queing area, waiting for our match together to begin. At this time we were having problems with our drivetrain, and another student and I had our hands in the robot fixing it. This mentor came over, proclaimed that we were going about fixing it the wrong way, and threw his hands into our robot to begin to do it his way. I quickly, and probably rather rudely responded to him that us students could fix our own teams robot, and we didn't need his help.

I guess the moral of the story is that sometimes these hard feelings do have a base to support them. While booing a team and making remarks about them is completely unacceptable, I feel that maybe some teams/mentors also dont realize that their actions have contributed to their "reputation."

Don't take this as criticism towards 1114, who for all I hear, and can tell,not only make awesome robots, but foster the kind of team that FIRST dreams about. But just as there are bad apples that boo them, there are bad apple "power teams" that lend to that reputation.

Carol

15-03-2011, 11:53

As has been suggested many times in this thread already, most of FIRST does not read CD. I challenge everyone reading this to stand up at their next team meeting and remind the team - students, mentors and parents - of what is acceptable behavior and what is not. And if they witness such behaviors, reprimand the bad behaviors and acknowledge the good behavior. FIRST is not talk radio or what passes for "commentary" on TV, where you are encouraged to belittle and abuse anyone who acts or thinks differently than you. FIRST celebrates differences.

Spread the word. If you don't have your own, and are at a event with MOE, ask for one of our GP or Grandmother buttons.

http://moe365.org/spirit.php

EricH

15-03-2011, 13:17

Not that any of the "powerhouse" teams would not take up such a proposal, but why should they have to?? We're now saying that on top of everything else most of these teams do, they now must prove to teams who question their capabilities that they do it "respectfully"?? I just don't think thats fair to those teams. However, like I said, I doubt any of them would turn down the request.

If you'll notice, I never said that it was required. I do feel that it's the best option that I can think of, both in terms of speed and in terms of not being a total jerk. That's not saying that someone else can't come up with a better idea.

Some other options I came up with:
--Judges blocking teams out of awards, no matter if they should get it or not--would probably work best if a note was sent to the team after the event explaining the reason
--Teams not allying with that team in eliminations, no matter how good their robot was, by decline if necessary
--Calling the team out publicly
--"Return the favor"; that is, do the same thing to them that they're doing to you/other team at the event

How many of those options would actually work? How many would take longer than a year? How many would create really bad feelings?

Again, for those reading this thread, remember <G60>. Remember the real meaning of Gracious Professionalism.

Madison

15-03-2011, 13:38

In NO other circumstance would the victim of an attack be expected to explain to others why the attack on them was unjust. This should be no different. These teams should not be asked to do anything more than they already do -- especially as an attempt to get others to stop mistreating them.

If we want more people to value these teams, then those of us that already value them need to step up, speak out and defend them when people act and behave like jerks. We shouldn't expect the teams being insulted to do it alone, we shouldn't expect the event organizers to do it on our behalf and we shouldn't expect FIRST to do it on any level. Peer pressure works. Use it for a good reason and you can make a lot of good happen.

Brandon Holley

15-03-2011, 13:42

If you'll notice, I never said that it was required. I do feel that it's the best option that I can think of, both in terms of speed and in terms of not being a total jerk. That's not saying that someone else can't come up with a better idea.

Madison summarized exactly what my response would have been.

It's not a team action that needs to occur, its actions needed to be taken on individual basis for anyone involved in FIRST.

-Brando

Rick TYler

15-03-2011, 14:17

If you still think that student run teams are better there isn't much more I can do to tell you how wrong you are other than say that FIRST has had this issue for at LEAST the 8 yrs I've been in FRC and done nothing about it. Give it up, every team is run differently, stop saying your way is better than any other way.

I apologize to Andrew for picking on his post to make a point, and his is only one of zillions on CD that has said essentially the same thing in the last few years, and that is "FIRST (... has) done nothing about it. Give it up..."

For an organization that was founded on the idea that the dominant cultural belief that athletics is valuable and engineering is "nerdy" and "uncool," the FIRST community tends to react badly to criticism of its methods and norms. Why shouldn't people argue that student run teams are better tools for accomplishing the aims of the organization? Why enforce the same static cultural rigidity that gets established in virtually any society, when the whole founding idea of FIRST was to be radical -- to envision a different sort of world? When the CD community dogpiles on a dissenter, that's what they are doing -- rushing to the ramparts to drive off barbarians who don't accept the dominant view of the world. And that's just as bad as what FIRSTers believe the mainstream culture is doing.

I could go on and give examples from political history of revolutionaries and radicals who more-or-less instantly became reactionaries and conservatives once they took power, but I'm pretty sure you all get that without me pointing it out. I encourage you all not to turn from FIRST radicals into complacent majorities who favor dogma over change and unity over finding the best possible ideas. If you can't defend your beliefs without simply shouting down others who disagree, perhaps your beliefs don't have much value in the first place.

How does this tie into the thread? Simply bashing the organizations that are the most successful in FRC they way it exists today is stupid. If you believe that the system has produced some methods that produce dysfunctional results, it is incumbent upon you to come up with rational arguments showing that those methods aren't the best possible, and, if you can, suggest changes to make the program better. Those who defend the status quo ante are then obligated to present their argument. If you avoid this discussion because, "FIRST has always done it this way and won't ever change," that's bad for everyone, both the defenders of the current methods and those who seek change. "Because I said so" doesn't advance anything, doesn't improve learning, and certainly isn't going to "change the culture."

If you believe that the folks who run FIRST won't ever change and don't listen to thoughtful criticism, it might be best to just not talk about things any more. There does come a time where you have to stop talking and take action. (I'm not talking armed rebellion or revolution here. Just to be sure you don't misunderstand.) That action might be to find another similar organization that shares your values, or you might want to start your own program. I'm not making the argument that FIRST is like this, but if you believe that nothing you say is ever listened to you should start to listen to that "give it up" advice . If it hurts when you hit yourself in the head, eventually you might want to drop the hammer and find something else to do.

And don't call people names just because they are better at optimizing a solution under the given constraints. It's foolish and dishonest.

JesseK

15-03-2011, 14:36

It's frustrating to know that one's best isn't good enough. Lashing out is the common human thing to do. THAT is what has to change as a culture; FIRST seems to attempt change in this aspect of culture by nurturing failure of the mind in learning environment. Yet this frustration in failure applies to failed relationships, failed projects, failed products, failed companies, and practically everything else; FIRST is no different. It takes maturity to push through the failure, and it takes resilience to be on the receiving end of it. If we call out every knucklehead who bashed some other team publicly or privately, we could be here all day. The important thing is that 1114 has students and mentors who are resilient and (mostly) humble; that is the model we can all emulate.

Keep the message loud and clear; eventually it'll stick.

And then there's moos. I had no idea a large crowd could moo so loud and so quickly.

It was one of those Holy Cow moments.

Jane

I just had to explain to my coworkers why I was laughing so hard :rolleyes:. Awesome post.

Jimmy Nichols

15-03-2011, 15:27

Wow! We attended Pittsburgh and were defeated in the Semis by Simbotics. I congratulated them, they outscored us. We were pitted accross from them. We chatted the whole weekend. I got to know a couple of the mentors more as we tried to adapt their minibot on to our machine. We spent hours to no avail and even after breaking one of their minibots, they were still awesome and willing to help us. I can honestly say I did not witness any of these actions and if I had I would have said something to them.

JaneYoung

15-03-2011, 16:05

I just had to explain to my coworkers why I was laughing so hard :rolleyes:. Awesome post.

What's funny about that is I didn't even think about it being funny when I wrote it. A couple of years ago, I was down on the field during the awards ceremonies at IRI. The crowd was having a really great time celebrating the teams who were being given awards. When the Holy Cows came through the line, all of a sudden the place was filled with moos. It threw me off because they sounded like boos and I couldn't believe anyone would ever do that at one of the robotics competitions. As one of the mentors came through, I asked him if their team moos. He burst out laughing and said, "Yes, we moo." It was a great moment but a very surprising one.

Jane

pfreivald

15-03-2011, 16:38

What's funny about that is I didn't even think about it being funny when I wrote it. A couple of years ago, I was down on the field during the awards ceremonies at IRI. The crowd was having a really great time celebrating the teams who were being given awards. When the Holy Cows came through the line, all of a sudden the place was filled with moos. It threw me off because they sounded like boos and I couldn't believe anyone would ever do that at one of the robotics competitions. As one of the mentors came through, I asked him if their team moos. He burst out laughing and said, "Yes, we moo." It was a great moment but a very surprising one.

Jane

Last year my team started yelling "boom" when we were doing well. It sounded like we were booing ourselves!

Mr. Van

15-03-2011, 18:40

In NO other circumstance would the victim of an attack be expected to explain to others why the attack on them was unjust.

I agree with you, Madison. I do not suggest that "powerhouse teams" defend themselves. I suggest that "powerhouse teams" do take the effort to break the impressions that others have of them.

Powerhouse teams that lawyer the rules, argue with refs and challenge inspectors will be seen as trying to "cheat" - even if they are right. Teams that have 4 students and 5 mentors in the pit on Thursday, working furiously and then have 40 students parading down to accept an award on Friday will be seen as "mentor built" - even if they are not. These teams that have drive coaches who do not listen to other drive coaches from their alliance partners will be seen as arrogant - even if they have the correct strategy. Teams that only socialize with other "winning" teams will seem elitist - even if they are simply building on long-standing friendships.

This is what I meant by these teams being on a pedestal. They are celebrities. They are the rock stars. And they have the best opportunity to make a difference on this issue. Continue to act graciously and professionally and invite the "haters" into your fold.

Eric is correct - fight fire with water. This is about who you are, not about who they are. It may not be "right", and indeed, you shouldn't "have to", but I agree with Eric - it is probably the fastest and most effective way to directly change the culture. Far better than rules or awards and the like.

Get them to mutter "they can't possibly be teenagers... they are so gracious and so professional!"

-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

LeelandS

15-03-2011, 22:01

I don't understand how this kind of behavior can still exist in FIRST. After 20 years of enforcing the ideals of GP, I would have thought this kind of behavior would be done.

1114 is a great team. I've had the honor of working with them in past years, as well as meeting one of their mentors, Karthik, however briefly it was. No one deserves to be treated the way they were. That kind of behavior in FiRST is simply not tolerated. And John is right, I hope any teams reading these posts or his blog feel horrible about their behavior. Any way you look at it, every student and mentor on that team dedicated 6+ weeks of their lives to do what we do here. They deserve the same respect shown to other teams, volunteers, referees or judges.

Egg 3141592654

18-03-2011, 13:51

Unacceptable... people that heckle and boo for other's achievements realize that they can't move any further to fairly compete. They do not need to publicly announce that. Team 1114 has my sympathy, no team deserves marring to their hard work.

JVN

20-03-2011, 23:31

MrForbes

20-03-2011, 23:33

I had our drive team get scouting data from the top seeded team, just before alliance selection.

Katie_UPS

20-03-2011, 23:34

Week 3 has come and gone. So what did YOU do this week to shift the culture within FIRST?

-John

We had a team meeting discussing the article. We made sure all team members understand that teams work for their excellence and that we should never belittle what they do or how they do it.

Its helps that this year has been a prime example for students how hard work can pay off.

Basel A

20-03-2011, 23:43

Week 3 has come and gone. So what did YOU do this week to shift the culture within FIRST?

-John

I shared your blog post with many (100+ FIRSTers on FB, 40+ FIRSTers on Twitter).

I shifted the culture of one team member who seemed convinced a certain team does nothing for themselves (as in, not even their mentors).

I argued, to no avail, with one graduated FIRSTer, who was convinced a team that has won a CCA (and I'm not talking pre-2000; a fairly recent HoF member) doesn't know, or has at least lost sight of, the ideals of FIRST. Despite evidence to the contrary. Not sure what to do there.

I cheered for the most deserving team when they won, because they earned it.

I took some sweet pictures of sweet robots, but I guess that's unrelated. But for the record, some teams (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=6628433&l=0376fabeaa&id=631438600) are just plain inspiring.

Edit: Reporting has no effect. When those who act inappropriately, mentors or students or whoever else, aren't corrected, action needs to be taken, and that is the suggestion of this thread. Most mentors share the right message with students, but it is the vocal minority that are the source of these issues.

Steve_Alaniz

21-03-2011, 00:29

santosh

21-03-2011, 01:38

PLEASE

End this thread.

It went from reporting inappropriate actions to labeling people "Haters". "Haters?" You mean the people we mentor? The young men and women in their TEENS we are trying to inspire? There are many inappropriate actions that are successfully handled by mentors and these incidents are never brought up again. What happened to 1114 is regrettable and indefensible but to label those teams, students, (mentors) who boo'd as "Haters" is over the pale.
The powerhouse teams are NOT victims. The people who rival them are NOT Haters and if there is that much sensitivity, then frankly there needs to be introspection. It's NOT about the robots... It's NOT about winning... it's about inspiration. And there is no greater inspiration than a mentor instructing their team..or even another team, on the appropriate way to handle their disappointment. It's a bitter pill to swallow...simply because it is...someone with greater resources bested you... did a better job... or simply lucked out... but you applaud the winners because it is right.

Steve

I cosign this almost fully.
At first, we hear about in first such as how one day it will be a first student to end world poverty, provide clean water to the world, and cure cancer. This implies that lift is not fair and that it is our job to help make it fair by helping others.

You know what is not fair, having mentors design and build robots while kids get "inspired."
Although some call it fair, most of society would call it unfair. Not to compare something as trivial as how well your team's robot does to world wide issues, but you do as well as you do in first many times because of simply what school you go to.

I don't know why people want to silence public discourse on the matter. Yeah, what happened to simbotics sucks and should never happen, but is it that hard to believe?
I'll be the first person to admit that I dislike the idea of mentors fully designing and cading robots and having those mentors/ a shop put it together. I instantly shot down the idea of having that happen to the team that I started and mentor. I couldn't/still can't see how students could have fun and take pride in their robot if they weren't the ones putting in the work for build design and debugging.

I simply cannot see how a student can be inspired when they havent made extensive contributions to their machine. I think inspiration comes from the students seeing what they built and seeing it run and run well, Not seeing an engineer built robot dominate a bunch of other teams. At that point it isn't a high school robotics competition.

Forgive me if you disagree with me and forgive me if thus doesn't make too much sense for I have been up late catching up on school work.

penguinfrk

21-03-2011, 03:04

This year was the first year our team's made it to the championships. When we won on the field, our arm operator, a freshman, excitedly told the coach, driver, and analyst (all upperclassmen, myself included) "I'm so excited I'll be so close to the field when we get crushed by the powerhouse teams. I can't wait for St. Louis!"

We had showed the videos of 118, 148, and 254 to the team for inspiration the two weeks before the competition. It felt great knowing that, even if not our team in particular, FIRST was inspiring students.

Paul Copioli

21-03-2011, 07:38

OK I have sat by and kept silent on this thread long enough. I very wise man told me long ago that if you spread an untruth or a statement not based on fact long enough that people will believe it as fact.

Please, if you are going to make statements like, "these powerhouse teams that have the mentors build the robot ...." make sure you have the facts to back it up. You may not call teams out by name, but we all know who you are addressing.

So, to spread some facts:

Team 217 has 44 students and about 10 mentors (including the teachers). 12 of these students were on the design team along with me and three engineers from FANUC Robotics. The FANUC engineers were mostly there during the week while I was in Texas to answer SolidWorks questions, etc. The students are trained by a SolidWorks professional for 1 week and are trained by me for one day on how to do sheet metal the IFI way. I design certain parts of the robot and the students design others. In most cases I design less than 40% of the robot, but check 100% of the students work.

My challenge to other "mentor built" teams: please share your facts ... all of them.

In short, if you don't have facts, please stop making assumptions.

One last thing, if you ever run into a 217 student from 2004 and earlier ask them what our team was like back then. I had the pleasure of running into a former student leader from 2003 and 2004 and her comments about how far our team has come since then really hit home with me ... thanks Jacqui!

Thanks,
Paul

IKE

21-03-2011, 08:52

Only 1 time has someone openly told me they thought that our robot was "mentor built". That team's machines were built by professional craftsmen due to sponsor and shop space rules, and they assumed we operated the same way. Ironically I always assumed that particular robot was nearly 100% student built (this is after competing with and against them for 4+ years). We don't get the public comments like a lot of the big teams, but I think that is because we go to events where there are often better teams to take the brunt of those comments.

On our team, what the students to vs. what the mentors do varies from year to year depending on the skills and interest of the students. We strive for the kids to build as much as possible. We often hit around 90% if you did a raw part count. Our school is a college prep school where the kids often have never "gotten their hands dirty". We place a high priority them getting this experience.

Who does the specialty skills changes a lot. These are the skills that require some amount of talent, and a lot of practice. Every year around 10 students say they want to weld next year in the post season interveiw. Every year around 6-8 will make it through the 2 hours of "IKE's introduction to welding". Most don't go beyond that. I think the biggest problem is the hours of isolation from the team while perfecting the craft. Every few years, we will get a student that has the determination and talent to weld. I am very excited as we brought on board a new mentor with welding skills, so hopefully there is more instructional time available in the future.

During the design strategy phase, we engage the entire team. After strategy, we will break into smaller groups for particular subsystems. These are usually a mentor or 2 and 4-8 kids. We brainstorm all the different ways we could do something and then prototype the ideas we like best. We also present these ideas back to the larger group to get the groups insights and critiques.
During the design phase, we teach how to do engineering estiamtes for forces, dimensions, motor selection, and gear ratios. I help with which equations to use, and then make the kids do the math. They generally hate it initially, but become fond of it really quickly. We also do the math for scoring, game strategy, and tournament strategy. Almost every team member was present and participating when we analyzed the value of the Double-Ubertube manuever. This was essential so that everyone understood their role in making that auto-mode possible. The gripper, chassis, elevator, arm, and even minobot team (CG effects on auto) needed to have a vested interest in making that successful.
The last couple of years, we have used a few more CNC or Waterjet parts for things that in the past have resulted in a lot of scrapped parts. We have giant bins full of brackets with 4 motor mount holes in them. Typically there is 1 on size, 1 slightly larger, one that appears to be hand-drill slotted, and one that is indescrible. This has been very valuable as it makes having an actual dimensioned design more important which makes repeatability for a practice machine more likely. It has also saved a few days of precious build time.

If you take away anything from this post, please note the use of WE. I did a lot of projects when I was a kid where adult input was not legal. While you learn a lot of "what not to do", you frequently do not learn a "right way" of doing things. More often than not, you learned ways of getting the wrong way to work. I wish I had a mentor to explain why 15 lbs of thrust really wasn't sufficient for a 3lb rocket. Yes, they were beautiful, and they would go up... just not far enough for a successful parachute deployment. When "mentor input" is illegal, it also makes any mentor input significantly more valuable. In FSAE, they are not allowed to sue "ringers" yet they are allowed to have a professor in charge. Guess which teams often do the best year after year? FIRST is really cool that you get to legally work with the students in stead of working for them, or them working for you. I may be their mentor, but I am also their teammate.

P.S. I was also a "hater" when I was younger of big resource (farmers, horse & pony members, sports teams, supermileage teams, solarcar teams...). Luckily my first year on Team 33 (2005), I had Jim Zondag and Tim Grogan set me straight when I made a disparranging remark about Team 67. They taught me to try to befriend and learn from everyone. I was very fortunate to have mentors like that set me straight early on.

craigcd

21-03-2011, 09:12

The amount of time the mentors spend working on the robot depends of the make up of the team. I have recruited several teams in Louisiana that the majority of the students have never picked up a hand or power tool. They have never met an engineer and have never seen a robot. Out of a team of twenty students you may have two that feel comfortable using tools. These are the teams that need the most support. They are also the teams that need the most encouragement and guidance. Hopefully by the end of the build season you have core of students that can help in the repair. When you take a group of students that have never been involved in any kind of design project and try to introduce them to the First competition it requires a special kind of mentor. We try to get the students involved in the design of the robot but a firm direction is needed to keep the team focused. You want the teams to be able to compete and have some kind of offense capability. The first year is the hardest. I try to introduce all the schools that I can to the First program. I try to get them the engineers that they need to help build the robot. I try to get them the money they need to supplement any grants they have received. I have been fortunate in the fact that I have recruited several very good mentors and engineers to help the Lousisana schools. I does bother me to see only mentors working on the robots in the pit. Some times it can’t be helped. What really bothers me is to see mentors working on the robots and there is no student around to watch and learn.

pfreivald

21-03-2011, 12:07

In most cases I design less than 40% of the robot, but check 100% of the students work.

...and I'll bet that if you look at most of these "student-built" teams, their ratios aren't that far off from that.

Ryan Caldwell

21-03-2011, 13:14

It's the easy way out to hate on organizations like the Yankees or the Redwings or the Patriots. It’s a much harder thing to put in the work and build an organization that is capable of being contenders year after year after year.

To get away from the Sports if you go back and read this thread the "Power House" teams weren’t born into it. They built what they have overtime, I was a ThunderChicken in 2002 when we took a chance on a Crazy Transmission that required a can of circuit chiller after every match so we didn't melt the copper in the motors (my bad on the Ozone layer) Then in 2003 our strategy was right on for the first 15 seconds and then we ran out of a plan, but from all this our team learned our organization evolved we took a look at teams that were winning Hammond, Wildstang, Bomb Squad and asked them what they did. Was there Jealousy back then? Yup, a "man I wish we could just go out and dictate the match, I wish our robot worked every match. Their mentors obviously finished work on the mars probe with enough time to design that whole robot…." Teenagers take allot at face value and even with Google still don’t find out all the facts. It’s part of being young and impressionable…mentors ;)

The team I mentor now is a third year who looks at the "power house" teams as targets. How do they recruit? How do they do their fund raising? How are they structured? How do we get them to pick us? How do we beat them? How do we beat them next year? What do we have to do now to lock up Chairman’s in 2015?

There allot of questions and ~2000 answers to each one, as each team dose their own thing. The really cool thing about FIRST is its transparency and the "Power House" teams give out more information and recourses than most.
The key is evolution, if your team is better this year than last, that’s good. Personal growth is part of what FIRST dose, but don’t think the “Power House” Teams are sitting back, 67 doesn’t win 2 in a row by sitting back on a good year and coasting you know their developing new tricks to put in their magic bots.

Karthik

21-03-2011, 20:02

I cosign this almost fully.
At first, we hear about in first such as how one day it will be a first student to end world poverty, provide clean water to the world, and cure cancer. This implies that lift is not fair and that it is our job to help make it fair by helping others.

You know what is not fair, having mentors design and build robots while kids get "inspired."
Although some call it fair, most of society would call it unfair. Not to compare something as trivial as how well your team's robot does to world wide issues, but you do as well as you do in first many times because of simply what school you go to.

I don't know why people want to silence public discourse on the matter. Yeah, what happened to simbotics sucks and should never happen, but is it that hard to believe?
I'll be the first person to admit that I dislike the idea of mentors fully designing and cading robots and having those mentors/ a shop put it together. I instantly shot down the idea of having that happen to the team that I started and mentor. I couldn't/still can't see how students could have fun and take pride in their robot if they weren't the ones putting in the work for build design and debugging.

I simply cannot see how a student can be inspired when they havent made extensive contributions to their machine. I think inspiration comes from the students seeing what they built and seeing it run and run well, Not seeing an engineer built robot dominate a bunch of other teams. At that point it isn't a high school robotics competition.

Forgive me if you disagree with me and forgive me if thus doesn't make too much sense for I have been up late catching up on school work.

I'm not going to get into the 100% student vs. 100% mentor built argument in this thread, as it has been rehashed many times on these forums. Your opinion seems very firm, and you are completely entitled to it. Since Team 1114 was mentioned in your post, I do want to talk about our design and build philosophy, to make sure that any misconceptions are dealt with. (A few others have discussed our design process in this thread, an captured it very well, I'm just going to reiterate for emphasis) So following Paul's lead, here's the real story about The Simbots.

Team 1114 has never been and will never be a 100% mentor designed and built team, despite the inaccurate assumptions of many people. Our students work hand in hand with our mentors during the entire design phase of the robot. Whether it be brainstorming discussions, preliminary sketches or actual CAD, the project is done as a team with students working with mentors. In terms of fabrication, many parts are built in house by students in our high school shop (we have a few lathes, two CNC mills, a manual mill, an assortment of drill presses and bandsaws and a variety of hand tools), while more complicated parts are sent out to be manufactured by local or not so local machine shops which sponsor the team. Finally, all assembly is done in house, 95% of which is done by our students, with minimal assistance from mentors. At competitions, all maintenance and repairs are led by the students in the pits, with mentors being called in when needed. The entire project is a collaboration between students, mentors, teachers and sponsors, with all four groups learning from each other. The students on our team come out of their experience being both educated and inspired.

Sometimes I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, as it seems like we have to deal with these allegations on a fairly regular basis, both on these forums and via other communication avenues. If anyone wants to learn more about how Simbotics operates, we have a long standing open invitation for any team to visit our shop and/or practice field during the build season. If you can't make the trip, drop by our pits. Granted, we're a very busy and focused group during competitions, but if someone has a free moment I know they'd be glad to share it with you.

If I seem agitated by people claiming that our robot is designed and built by the mentors, it's because I am. Any claim of that sort, is stripping credit away from the students who worked so hard to build their robot and their team. Think about how you would have felt as a high school student, if you were publicly booed and insulted, while people were saying you couldn't possibly be capable of building your robot. I'm tired of having to prepare, defend and protect our students from this onslaught of negativity. Most importantly, this isn't just about any one team. No team should ever have to deal with this type of negativity, and it happens far too often in FIRST. Not just to powerhouses, and also not just to FRC teams. (Yes, I've seen FLL teams who have been subjected to these types of attitudes and it actually makes me sick to my stomach.) We can do better. We need to do better.

pfreivald

21-03-2011, 20:48

I'm tired of having to prepare, defend and protect our students from this onslaught of negativity.

Dear Karthik,

We love your team, and we want and strive to be more like you.

Sincerely,

1551

Andy Grady

21-03-2011, 20:50

In short, if you don't have facts, please stop making assumptions.

l

To add to that, how about this for a fact.

All these teams who people complain about being "100% mentor built" are probably the teams that have the largest number of students returning to volunteer, mentor, etc.. Ask around to some of the FIRST alumni around where they originated from, I bet you will be surprised.

That is a pretty heavy fact, and in my opinion should end the debate over mentor/student built robots flat out.

Rick TYler

21-03-2011, 20:56

That is a pretty heavy fact, and in my opinion should end the debate over mentor/student built robots flat out.

This post gets my vote for "Least-likely-to-come-true prediction of 2011."

Mr. Van

21-03-2011, 20:58

Not just to powerhouses, and also not just to FRC teams. We can do better. We need to do better.

After having been personally accused of designing and building our team's VEX robots, two things struck me:

1. Wow! We must have hit the big time (in VRC) - we've been accused of being mentor built!

2. I was quite flattered to realize that some people actually thought that I was that good. (The students who do the designing of our VEX robots are really talented - far more than I am!)

Karthik is absolutely right: WE NEED TO GET BEYOND THIS ISSUE. There are hundreds of ways to run a Competitive Robotics Team. Do what works for yours and keep trying to improve it. Don't worry about teams that do something different unless you wish to borrow some of their ideas. In that case, just go over and talk to them...

Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox

O'Sancheski

21-03-2011, 21:02

This is unbelievable. I volunteered on Curie at championships last year (the field that the Simbots were on) and ever time they had a match I was amazed with the calmness of the drive team. These team members of 1114 are some of the best students that I have seen at a FIRST event. I am ashamed to say I am part of something where people treat fellow peers in that way.

I hope that the students and mentors of the teams that took part in those comments and actions will read this thread and realize how ridiculous they are and get their act together.

Mr. Pockets

21-03-2011, 22:28

The issue of student vs mentor designed always perplexed me. Some of our teams most blatant failures have been concieved by mentors while some of our greatest successes were designed by students.

Main topic: I have been a rather long hiatus from this forum so I had totally missed most of this discussion, but the idea that ANYONE would stoop that low over a robot is saddening. Since when were these rolling paperwieghts the reason we do this? We do this to be inspired: be it by building, outreach, cheering, or learning. We're supposed to be the one's driving the robots not the other way round >.>

galewind

21-03-2011, 22:52

Our team has a largely mentor-designed machine with student input on how they feel devices should articulate. In other words, students feed mentors ideas (mentors contribute as well), then mentors work on designing and developing parts, sometimes WITH students. Sometimes students even assist mentors by inventoring parts before construction. Students do the assembly.

Now, I've shared my piece. Now I'll share this: this is going to sound crass, but I don't care exactly how you design and build your machine. Our goal, is to INSPIRE. Take a look at your students -- are they INSPIRED? Do they WANT to pursue engineering, technology, or problem solving in general?

I guess my point is: we all know that this is an uneven playing field. For the most part, I think we need to stop looking outside of the borders of our own team to make sure we're in-check with what I see as the primary goal of first: "inspiration" of our youth to pursue science and technology. Are WE accomplishing our mission? What's our track record? How many students have we succeeded? How many have we NOT succeeded.. and how do we lower that second number?

Past that, go on and TALK to other teams, WITNESS how they work, try to GAIN information to help TRANSFORM your team to MAXIMIZE YOUR INSPIRATION. Whether it be your design process, your team structure, or your meeting structure and activities, you are building PEOPLE first... focus on THEM before you criticize a team's robot design process.

This discussion should NEVER be about hating on teams... it should be about LEARNING from each other, SHARING ideas and experience, and RESPECTING the work that we all do.

I love you all for what you do, but please, let's remember, the robot and competition are just celebrations of hard work and inspiration. What we're really doing is building people, and our measure of success only comes after these students graduate high school and college.... NOT how we rank amongst other teams, or the details of our design process.

Good night.

Brian Ha

22-03-2011, 10:20

This is really sad. I didn't know this kind of stuff even happened in first. (Although i do and i have heard it on my team) I saw first hand 1114's robot and just sat in awe. My mentor and i have joked around because the video we were watching was very slow so one frame you see them on one side of the camera and the next second one the other side. I made comments about the speed that they have and the fact that the driver can still control their robot at the speed their going is outstanding. It is really disappointing to hear that people would go out of their way to do the things that teams did to 1114. If i ever see them in real life i think i would say sorry because first is really a family and nobody should ever really treat someone else like that, EVER! even if you dont like them.

MrForbes

22-03-2011, 10:27

I've been thinking about the issue a lot recently. I had an interesting insight I'd like to toss out for discussion. I wonder if the students that are being disrespectful are accurately expressing what they're upset about? I wonder if they're actually upset about this common trait of top teams: the mentors do not allow the students on their team to fail

Brian Ha

22-03-2011, 10:43

bginnetti

22-03-2011, 11:38

This is stupid, Its just a competition. Nobody should shove,hit, or bad mouth another team because they are the "powerful" ones. The point of this competition is to win but also to make friends, help each other out, and analyze new things. Things like what to put on your robot for the next competition. The team who attacked 1114 are just being immature. It was their first robotics competition. They needed some help. Maybe the other team was more experienced and they see themselves as powerful.

Lets hope this doesn't happen in this years FRC competition.

fitsismia

22-03-2011, 11:46

i think that it is valuable to have a well cooperating team. its important because on person can destroy the whole team.

Andrew Schuetze

22-03-2011, 12:25

I've been lurking on this thread a while and would possibly like to see a spin off thread started with reposts or links to a few nuggets in this thread. In a world of diversity of resources, parity will always be an issue and how one deals with that is very important and a worthwhile discussion.

Now, my interest is focused along the lines of Lil' Lavery point in that resolution to this issue is to reduce the degree of disparity and not by bringing other teams down or by limiting what a mentor or sponsor can do to support the development of a robot design. A distinguishing feature of FRC is that there are very few limits to how elegant a design can be. Great robots are inspriring to many. I am interested in knowing what is needed to bring other teams up a notch or two.

Having just helped organize the brand new Alamo Regional, it was difficult to explain to VIPS new to FIRST why immediately after opening ceremonies on Friday that we only had 4 or 5 robots on the field and one of them wasn't doing much. Very anti-climatic. This regional planning committee and folks associated with FIRST in Texas began team sustainability discussions immediately after grant money was found to grow both FTC and FRC in Texas.

I appretiate the posts by JVN, Karthic, Paul Copoli as they describe how their teams work. One can never have enough engineers and of sufficient variety but just how many is needed and of what type. What are the key pre-season activities in which the mentors and students engage?

I probably have a few ideas in this regard since I've spent 10 years building two teams without lots of resources and still struggle to get everything built before ship date. Having input on paper from other sources from successful teams may help turn the tide here in Texas to a point where we have more "A" teams than "C-". Everyone wants to be at an event where any group of three teams can win matchs against another group of three. Sometimes the game helps in that regard and IMHO why Lil Lavery is able to pull match video from 2009 of younger teams playing a smart game and winning against seasoned veterans.

So my call to action is to any self-described quality team to post a white paper, reference to a white paper or reply to this thread or creat another with what mentoring resources you have, what on-site equipment you have and what kinds of shop support and then what kinds of things you do before the build season begins to maximize success on the field and in the CA judging. Key in that discussion is how the mentors interact with the students. i.e. Paul writes that 80% of the CAD work is performed by students but 100% is reviewed by himself. What other critical design elements are 100% reviewed by a key volunteer or group of mentors. How is code tested? Are students required to submit wiring schematics and present electrical/power load analysis. (if they have Al as a mentor I be they do:) )

I've seen a few of these posts in the past and if someone has the time to pull them all together into a single document, I would be extremely grateful or maybe post a word document with url links to existing white papers on this subject...

Mike Soukup

22-03-2011, 13:31

I wonder if they're actually upset about this common trait of top teams: the mentors do not allow the students on their team to fail
That's quite an assumptive statement. Where are the facts to back it up?

Paul Copioli

22-03-2011, 13:37

We allow our students to fail, but we strive to get them to fix the failure before the team gets to competition.

The team constantly is fixing failures the entire season.

Squirrel,

I am not sure what you meant by not allowing them to fail, but I am sure you were making a positive comment, not a negative one right?

Paul

Taylor

22-03-2011, 13:41

...So my call to action is to any self-described quality team to post a white paper, reference to a white paper or reply to this thread or creat another with what mentoring resources you have, what on-site equipment you have and what kinds of shop support and then what kinds of things you do before the build season begins to maximize success on the field and in the CA judging...

CD-Media search "business plan" or "chairman's entry" - there are dozens of pages of white papers that do exactly this.

rsisk

22-03-2011, 14:01

...

Having just helped organize the brand new Alamo Regional, it was difficult to explain to VIPS new to FIRST why immediately after opening ceremonies on Friday that we only had 4 or 5 robots on the field and one of them wasn't doing much. Very anti-climatic. This regional planning committee and folks associated with FIRST in Texas began team sustainability discussions immediately after grant money was found to grow both FTC and FRC in Texas.

...

I hope those VIP were still around by the end of the day to see how many competitive teams were on the field thanks to the hard work of everyone there, including those "powerhouse", "mentor built" teams discussed in the OP.

That's the real magic of a FIRST competition.

Adam Freeman

22-03-2011, 14:11

In general I would characterize the HOT team as mentor designed, student programmed, fabricated, and built.

Our entire team is involved in game analysis, strategy discussions, and initial design concepts and inspirations. The Chief Engineering mentors (Jim Meyer and I) lead the team lead the team through these discussions, but it is open for any student or mentor to share their general ideas. During these discussions we have had students come up with concept designs for specific subsystems (2011- Two pronged arm w/claw) or even overall robot design concepts (2009 – large hopper with roller system to feed a turreted shooter).

Once we split into groups (design, mechanical, electrical, programming, field build, chairman’s, and animation). The design group and the engineering mentors assigned to design, are responsible for generating the detailed designs for the robot. How involved the students are in the details of the design depends on the age, skill, and desire of the design students. Typically, our designs are 90-100% designed and “engineered” by the mentors. I say “engineered” because much of our design process is more intuition based, than cold hard engineering calculations. The students are exposed to our thought process tri-weekly as we design parts during our meetings. A mentor’s computer is typically displayed on the projector so that the students can see and discuss how and why things are being designed certain ways. We try to explain important parts of the design to them, so they understand how and why it will work. Our design students then take our 2D AutoCAD files and create solid models of the parts and assemble them from our 2D Assembly sketches, working with the engineer to understand how parts are supposed to go together as designed.

Our robots are completely student machined and assembled, with the mentors working alongside the students to make sure the parts are machined and assembled as designed. When issues are found we explain our mistakes to the students and work with them on how to correct them. We have full access to the main machine shop at the General Motors Milford Proving Grounds. Our students use the CNC mills, manual lathes, a waterjet machine, and sheet metal breaks to create the parts for our robot. The only thing the students don’t do is weld up parts (which we try to keep to a minimum).

For the past two year we have been 100% fully student programmed in both C++ and Labview. We don’t have any mentors fully trained in either language, so the mentors work with the students on prioritizing general robot functions, autonomous strategies, sense of urgency, backing up files, etc..

Why is this how we function?

1. This way seems to be successful for our team, both on the field and off. We have tons of former students that have become great engineer all over the country. Many that are still participating in FIRST.

2. This is hard! Even to our mentors. We are not designers, engineers, programmers, or machinists that do this every day. It takes us 6+ weeks to get these things designed, built, and programmed.

3. Our engineers are not as good at teaching the students to do the design, as well as we are at creating the designs ourselves and explaining them. I am jealous of the teams with engineers that can teach the students how to design and still play at an incredibly high level.

4. Our mission is to work with the students to inspire them to be interested and pursue an engineering education. Not to train them to be engineers. We feel we are achieving this goal 100%.

JaneYoung

22-03-2011, 14:17

So my call to action is to any self-described quality team to post a white paper, reference to a white paper or reply to this thread or creat another with what mentoring resources you have, what on-site equipment you have and what kinds of shop support and then what kinds of things you do before the build season begins to maximize success on the field and in the CA judging. Key in that discussion is how the mentors interact with the students. i.e. Paul writes that 80% of the CAD work is performed by students but 100% is reviewed by himself. What other critical design elements are 100% reviewed by a key volunteer or group of mentors. How is code tested? Are students required to submit wiring schematics and present electrical/power load analysis. (if they have Al as a mentor I be they do:) )

I've seen a few of these posts in the past and if someone has the time to pull them all together into a single document, I would be extremely grateful or maybe post a word document with url links to existing white papers on this subject...

Andrew,

My suggestion would be for you to create a thread, asking the 'self-described quality teams' to post the information/links that you are requesting in the thread. From there, you can cobble it together into a white paper/resource. That way, each team can be responsible for their contributions but not have to worry about everyone else's. Just a thought.

Jane

Andrew Schuetze

22-03-2011, 14:52

Andrew,

My suggestion would be for you to create a thread, asking the 'self-described quality teams' to post the information/links that you are requesting in the thread. From there, you can cobble it together into a white paper/resource. That way, each team can be responsible for their contributions but not have to worry about everyone else's. Just a thought.

Jane
Your post beat mine to the web. I'll take a stab at a new thread with requests for specific questions so that I get the details that I am looking for. The 67 team post was very interesting and informative. That will have to wait for me to get some regular work done and grad school this evening.:)

APS

MrForbes

22-03-2011, 15:07

That's quite an assumptive statement. Where are the facts to back it up?

Your performance speaks for itself.

I doubt there is something special about the students you have, that separates them so far from the students on other teams in terms of what they can accomplish with robots. I think the difference is in the adults on the team. I think it's based in a very strong drive to succeed in one or a few mentors, which leads eventually to a team that is an unstoppable powerhouse.

I don't propose that you not try to do your best. I am (apparently in vain) just trying to get the mentors of some of the top teams to have some slight grasp of how some other people see them.

I don't intend to be negative. I'm trying to help solve a problem. The problem has more than one side, though. If you can't see that, then you're going to have difficulty changing the situation.

If I've offended anyone, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.

JackG

22-03-2011, 15:12

John, first let me say thank you for making this sincere reminder of the behavior we are striving to eradicate, and the ideals to which we are aspiring. It's very edifying to see someone so esteemed in the community use the prominence of their position to promote such a message.

I do have to ask, though, why you chose to include the following in the instances of unacceptable behavior.

Members of another team while pushing their robot to the field elbowed 1114 students out of the way saying "out of the way, student built robot coming through."

I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that elbowing others out of the way is not professional and should be avoided when possible (not to mention unsafe!) However, was there something about the quote that you felt was not in keeping with the behavior we are trying to establish?

Chris is me

22-03-2011, 15:23

I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that elbowing others out of the way is not professional and should be avoided when possible (not to mention unsafe!) However, was there something about the quote that you felt was not in keeping with the behavior we are trying to establish?

It has several objectionable themes.

The idea that it's okay to assume that other team's robots are built with no student involvement just because you are jealous.
The idea that student built robots are "better".
The idea that it's okay to harass and abuse other teams based on the assumptions you made about their robot design process.

JaneYoung

22-03-2011, 15:37

Jim,

I think Paul's response is reflective of how these teams work.

We allow our students to fail, but we strive to get them to fix the failure before the team gets to competition.

One thing that I'm not seeing much of in the discussion is the students' drive and their thirst for knowledge. Their curiosity. What they bring to the table helps to define a team - and how those qualities are developed while on the team is a part of this.

Jane

EJB2081

22-03-2011, 15:40

ok the second item on that objectionable list is 100% true

If you don't believe that a student built robot is better than one built by a professional then why does FIRST even exist??

Of course student built robots are better because they are what we are trying to produce from FIRST. Should you go around a regional stating you have a student built robot? No. But that doesn't mean you're 100% wrong.

Student built robots are 100% better than any robot built by any hands that are not connected to a student.

Chris Hibner

22-03-2011, 15:44

Your performance speaks for itself.

I doubt there is something special about the students you have, that separates them so far from the students on other teams in terms of what they can accomplish with robots. I think the difference is in the adults on the team. I think it's based in a very strong drive to succeed in one or a few mentors, which leads eventually to a team that is an unstoppable powerhouse.

I don't propose that you not try to do your best. I am (apparently in vain) just trying to get the mentors of some of the top teams to have some slight grasp of how some other people see them.

I don't intend to be negative. I'm trying to help solve a problem. The problem has more than one side, though. If you can't see that, then you're going to have difficulty changing the situation.

If I've offended anyone, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to.

I will agree with two points you made:

1) The students on WildStang are probably not 10 times more special than students on other teams.

and

2) The mentors are what makes the consistently great teams consistently great.

However, I very much disagree with the leap from "the mentors are what makes a team consistently great" to "the mentors do everything".

High school sports is a great example. Every state has teams that are elite year after year in a given sport (around here Farmington Hills Harrison football is a great example). Are their students inherently superior in football every year? No - it's the coaches that are the common factor (like the mentors in FIRST).

Do we now make the leap that the coaches must be donning masks to look like teenagers and play quarterback and running back? It's pretty obvious that they aren't doing that. The job of the coaches is to have a winning SYSTEM, and a METHOD to teach and apply the system.

If adults instill consistently elite programs with high school kids playing football, why can't the same be done in robotics?

Mr. Pockets

22-03-2011, 16:20

If you don't believe that a student built robot is better than one built by a professional then why does FIRST even exist??
To inspire people to be more aware and interested in science and technology. The robot, as we're CONSTANTLY reminded, is just a vessel. Whether that vessel is student or mentor built doesn't concern me as much as what the student takes away as from the experience.

EJB2081

22-03-2011, 16:24

To inspire people to be more aware and interested in science and technology. The robot, as we're CONSTANTLY reminded, is just a vessel. Whether that vessel is student or mentor built doesn't concern me as much as what the student takes away as from the experience.

But if the mentor builds the robot how can the students take anything away??

XaulZan11

22-03-2011, 16:27

But if the mentor builds the robot how can the students take anything away??

Why are you assuming mentors build entire robots for some teams? I think that is a big 'if'.

Alan Anderson

22-03-2011, 16:28

If you don't believe that a student built robot is better than one built by a professional then why does FIRST even exist??

Ask FIRST why it exists. You'll get this answer:

Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

There's nothing in FIRST's mission that supports a proposal that 100% student-built robots are preferable to partnership-built robots.

But if the mentor builds the robot how can the students take anything away??

Even supposing that there exist such 100% mentor-built robots, that's an easy question to answer. The thing about FIRST that distinguishes it from basically every other superficially similar organization is the emphasis on mentoring by professionals. Bringing students through a disciplined engineering process gives them the knowledge that such processes are important for consistent success. Showing students how to do analysis and design gives them the right idea about real-world engineering and technology.

AdamHeard

22-03-2011, 16:42

Akash Rastogi

22-03-2011, 16:55

I would argue that, more so than any other style team, elite level powerhouse teams teach their students the most valuable lesson they can learn in FIRST; Teaching students how to win.

Teaching students to work hard, smart, and for very long hours (many more than most would think) to achieve a goal at the highest level is an extremely valuable lesson. Achieving a goal by merely finishing, or reaching mediocrity is not acceptable; Excellence is the only satisfactory result.

I will probably get flack for implying that non-elite teams don't teach their students this, but it's true (they teach students to finish, but allow them to settle at less than perfection); They simply aren't on the same level. If they were, the results would be more equivalent.

I pretty much 100% agree with this. I don't think this should get flack, because on my old team there was always the attitude that I hated of "hey it works!" and "its good enough." (They have drastically changed this mentality). Elite teams do not share this mentality. They do not compromise.

I especially love the highlighted part. This is because I have always felt that if you are paying large amounts of money to compete in FRC, why would you waste your time and not put 150% of your time and effort into the program? I firmly believe this quote goes along with the other quotes in my signature.

nlknauss

22-03-2011, 17:09

There really is a lot to learn from reading through this thread. I have had the fortunate experience of traveling around my region to help support teams, both new and veteran, who ask questions along these lines. After hearing the question I remind them of what the mission of FIRST is, that one of the great things about FIRST is the mentor component, and I tell them that you get from the experience what you put into it. There are just as many team setups as there are teams in the entire organization. Everyone has different resources and means to achieve the ends, inspiration.

Whenever my team attends a competition, my mentors and I tell our students to go learn something. It can be anything technical or non-technical, and we learn a lot! The mentors make it a point to do the same with the students. From doing this, we are all able to walk out knowing that we will continue to improve for the future.

dpc131

22-03-2011, 17:57

Bringing students through a disciplined engineering process gives them the knowledge that such processes are important for consistent success. Showing students how to do analysis and design gives them the right idea about real-world engineering and technology.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. Our team has struggled in the past on the distribution between mentor and student design. The main goal of FIRST is to 'inspire' students to take interest in science and technology, not to build a robot.

What we have found is that a careful balance is needed to teach the students the design process, but not expect them to design everything. For Lunacy, the mentors did all of the calculations to determine how much stored energy was required to propel the ball over the goal and implemented that design criteria into an actual subsystem design. However, the students were there every step of the way and helped fabricate and build the design. By the end of the process they understood that mathematics can be applied into real world scenarios and saw the outcome of the application. At the end of the design almost all students could recite the process of how they went from an idea to a product. This is much better than trying to show applications of math by figuring out where two trains leaving two stations at different times and different speeds meet each other :)

We need to remember that constantly we hear that FIRST is 'not about the robot,' but inspiring young people to have the same passion for engineering that the mentor's have. Every team will do this a different way and there will never be a 'right' and 'wrong' way of doing it.

pfreivald

22-03-2011, 18:20

None of our students realized that simply adding a gusset to our lift arm would reduce the torque required by the motor by 43%. Indeed, most of our mentors didn't either...

...but it took our Woodie Flowers Award-winning mentor to walk kids through the design, why it was a good idea, and how to do it properly. None of them would have been ABLE to do it.

I see little value in a bunch of kids sitting around sharing their ignorance. They might learn something, sure -- but they won't be using the engineering design process all that well, and they won't be learning nearly as much.

There's nothing, and I mean NOTHING, wrong with learning from mentors as they help you design a robot, even if that means that sometimes the mentors shoulder some of the design work themselves.

This entire argument of student-vs-mentor built is silly. All-student-built robots might have their place (though I doubt there is truly such thing), as do student-and-mentor built robots, and even all-mentor-built robots (though I really, really, REALLY doubt there is such thing).

Mr. Pockets

22-03-2011, 18:36

But if the mentor builds the robot how can the students take anything away??
Depends on the person to be fair; some students will not take anything away under such conditions.

There is however more to robotics than the robot. Business skills, PR, community outreach, website involvement, people skills, a sense of community, networking all are taught through FIRST absent the robot.

I personally am the CAD group leader on my team. I do not intend to go into designing, but into management, public relations, or marketing. Why? Because I've learned through FIRST that I find my greatest joy in working with people. I'd call this FIRST inspiration, even if it didn't come from building a bot!

Grim Tuesday

22-03-2011, 20:18

I think we need to discern between "student built", "student fabricated" and "student designed"

On my team, mentors have little, if any, input into the machining process, but once our all student machining team finishes it's stuff, it goes to a coalition of students and mentors. Design is likewise: Students work with mentors on the design (though the design is decided by popular vote of students, and calculations are done by students. CAD is also 100% student based.) However, there is always a mentor assigned to a design team to help guide it from doing stupid things.

Yes, of course our mentors help in the building, its their favorite part! And how could we deny them it!

Chris Hibner

22-03-2011, 21:04

Jim,

I think Paul's response is reflective of how these teams work.

One thing that I'm not seeing much of in the discussion is the students' drive and their thirst for knowledge. Their curiosity. What they bring to the table helps to define a team - and how those qualities are developed while on the team is a part of this.

Jane

This is an interesting topic, and probably deserves its own discussion.

Our team has a good mixture of students that are there because they really want to learn about this stuff, and students that don't start out so interested (and in-between of course). You have to have the driven personalities to make things go, but the other end of the spectrum has a lot to get out of this program.

We request that teachers send students to us that they see as having a lot of potential, but maybe haven't found a reason to put that potential to good use. We commit to trying to win the competition and we play on the competitive spirit of human nature to trick these students into getting heavily involved. Before long, some of them are finding that they like this stuff and that gives them a reason get motivated. It doesn't always work, but we try our best.

robobandmom

22-03-2011, 21:16

I had the pleasure of attending the Pittsburgh Regional with my son's team, and had some nice conversations with a few of 1114's mentors. I know my son's team had some discussions/interactions with students from 1114, all of which he described in positive terms. My son's team has had interactions with Simbotics at other events, and his team has always enjoyed rising to the new level of competition that 1114 brings to any event they attend.

During the first rounds of the eliminations, there was a human player that appeared to be attempting to damage their bot, or at least get it to drop a tube. They were awarded a red card for this, and rightfully so. I don't know if it ended there; I hope they were told that kind of stuff won't be tolerated. Maybe there needs to be a penalty that follows you to your next event...kind of like a Flagrant Foul in basketball. I didn't see any boo'ing in the stands, and I was only in the pits minimally so I certainly didn't witness anything there. I will say I attempted to talk to some adults from an unruly team that was near us in the stands. ("When your kids do this, this is how affects us.") We got nowhere with them. We shook it off, and our students just dealt with it showing the professionalism you expect from an FRC team.

I certainly hope to see Simbotics at Pittsburgh next year. They are an awesome team, with great drive and focus. I had a great time cheering them on during practice, qualification and eliminations. I know somewhere on this message board I read the following quote- “Instead of wanted to beat them, we now want to be like them.” I think it is a process for kids (and some adults!)…first they see greatness and are intimidated, they have to stick around long enough to appreciate greatness and recognize what can be taken from the experience.

Chris is me

22-03-2011, 21:41

Teaching students to work hard, smart, and for very long hours (many more than most would think) to achieve a goal at the highest level is an extremely valuable lesson. Achieving a goal by merely finishing, or reaching mediocrity is not acceptable; Excellence is the only satisfactory result.

As long as excellence is not exclusively defined as a blue banner, I can get behind this...

pfreivald

22-03-2011, 21:51

As long as excellence is not exclusively defined as a blue banner, I can get behind this...

And yet, excellence should come through ***striving for*** a blue banner.

I don't care if my team wins. I care if they try their hardest to win.

jee7s

22-03-2011, 21:59

And yet, excellence should come through ***striving for*** a blue banner.

I don't care if my team wins. I care if they try their hardest to win.

Amen to that. There needs to be a target to shoot for, but you can't be disappointed if you fall short of that blue banner or trophy.

"Aim for the Moon...That way, if you miss, you'll still be among the stars." - W. Clement Stone

bduddy

22-03-2011, 22:41

During the first rounds of the eliminations, there was a human player that appeared to be attempting to damage their bot, or at least get it to drop a tube. They were awarded a red card for this, and rightfully so. I don't know if it ended there; I hope they were told that kind of stuff won't be tolerated. Maybe there needs to be a penalty that follows you to your next event...kind of like a Flagrant Foul in basketball.I'm curious as to what this HP was doing. At the St. Louis regional I witnessed a couple of HP's intentionally throwing tubes at tubes robots were carrying. It actually worked once or twice, and no penalties were called; I do not believe doing such is against the rules, nor should it be (IMO). How could an HP damage a robot?

gblake

22-03-2011, 23:05

And yet, excellence should come through ***striving for*** a blue banner.

I don't care if my team wins. I care if they try their hardest to win. What you wrote in the message I quoted is a fine and worthy sentiment; but if you want to agree with Chris, then I sincerely suggest agreeing without slipping the Blue Banner back into the equation. If you disagree with him then certainly feel free to unambiguously say so.

If I may put some words in his mouth, his point is that there are so many off-the-field goals that a team can (and should) pursue, that using on-the-field performance as the "600 pound gorilla" metric for assessing an FRC team's success is something that should not occur automatically or otherwise become a habit. The blue banner is only one of many targets a team can shoot for.

On the field performance is interesting and exciting, and some teams choose to make it the foundation they derive many other good things from; but while it is a useful way too decide if a team's robot is excellent, it is not the right way to decide if a team is "excellent" (whatever that might mean).

I can imagine many hypothetical teams that would be excellent in many important senses of the word that are also pertinent in FIRST; but who would not build an excellent robot. I recommend devloping a habit of explicitly not using blue banner counts to evaluate teams.

Blake

Chris is me

22-03-2011, 23:16

I was trying to go for the point that on field success can be achieved without actually winning the competition, but Blake's point is also valid. Not everyone's aim is to walk away with a regional win - there are other goals and metrics for success a team can choose to go for.

pfreivald

22-03-2011, 23:36

I wasn't trying to put words in anyone's mouth but my own.

I am of the opinion that if you are not striving for that most important of Blue Banners -- the Chairman's Award -- then you are not being all that you can be as a FIRST team, and that your students and mentors aren't getting everything out of the experience that they could be.

Donut

23-03-2011, 00:33

High school sports is a great example. Every state has teams that are elite year after year in a given sport (around here Farmington Hills Harrison football is a great example). Are their students inherently superior in football every year? No - it's the coaches that are the common factor (like the mentors in FIRST).

Do we now make the leap that the coaches must be donning masks to look like teenagers and play quarterback and running back? It's pretty obvious that they aren't doing that. The job of the coaches is to have a winning SYSTEM, and a METHOD to teach and apply the system.

If adults instill consistently elite programs with high school kids playing football, why can't the same be done in robotics?

To take this a step further, once mentors or coaches have instilled a system that creates excellence, more students want to be a part of that system. I know the original point of your post was to point out that powerhouse teams do not have superior students, but I think to an extent the better teams in FIRST can have students who are more motivated and interested in pursuing the engineering challenges it presents. If you look at elite sports programs in an area, once that program has sustained success, students will choose that school over another or will try out for that sport when they wouldn't have taken an interest before just because they know of its success. A FIRST team could be similar; successful teams are more likely to attract students who are undecided about the extracurricular activities they should pursue, and a student who has a strong engineering interest and the option of choosing between two schools with FIRST teams may be inclined to go to the school with the more successful team.

Note that I don't define success in terms of winning, since FIRST has many definitions of success as has been discussed at length.

Now about my team specifically, we are a team that is both student and mentor built. While there are times when the mentors are teaching students (especially those new to the program), often students and mentors work as equals on the team. Design discussions involve suggestions from both students and mentors, and build consists of students building part of an arm while a mentor takes another part of the arm to be welded (since there are no welding facilities at the school). There have been years where certain subteams are more student or mentor built depending on resources but the average is still that they are on equal ground.

If a team were to see us at competition, it would be easy to mistake us as an entirely mentor built team, even though that's far from the truth. For example at this year's regional, we had 7 mentors, 3 teachers/chaperones, and 10 students, though the numbers varied by day. Of the students on the team only 3 were usually in the pit, since 3 were on the drive team and the other 4 were distributing buttons, watching matches, etc. If you came by our pit at the wrong time you might see 3 mentors on the robot and no students (or mistake some of our students for mentors), and think "wow, the students don't do any work on that team". In reality the drive team was off discussing strategy for the next match and the students in the pit were quickly eating lunch, but if that's the only time you see our pit the wrong impression will stick with you.

So please teams, don't assume students aren't learning because you saw "only mentors" in the pits with the robot, or somehow "know" that mentors built their robot. You likely have just seen a team at the wrong time, and it's hard to shake first impressions.

Interestingly, our team has always had close to a 1:1 ratio between mentors and students because of the low number of students we usually have and the high number of mentors who like to get involved. And while we've always fielded robots that are at least mildly competitive, we have never won a regional competition and have only been finalists once in 11 years. Heck, this year was only the third time we've finished in the top 8 at an event. So I have to question the notion that a mentor heavy team will dominate other FIRST teams, because that has never been our experience.

Steve_Alaniz

23-03-2011, 01:10

During the first rounds of the eliminations, there was a human player that appeared to be attempting to damage their bot, or at least get it to drop a tube. They were awarded a red card for this, and rightfully so.

Just a point of curiosity... I am not trying to argue but please consider this.
At the Alamo regional, a tube occasionally hung on a robot where it was not intended. When that happened, there was a penalty assessed on that robot if it also held a game piece. The rules state that you may only possess one game piece at a time. So much has been made over knowing the actual facts that I have to ask about the 1114 incident... was this an intentional act by a student to damage a robot or a tactic to cause that robot delay wile trying to dislodge the game piece? I'm not sure it is against the rules to hit a robot with a game piece but I would like to know if there is a specific prohibition to doing so. In any case... did the student admit he was trying to damage the robot or is that just a perception?

Steve

PayneTrain

23-03-2011, 07:30

It should be that opposing alliances forcing teams into penalties receive a yellow card, while opposing alliances forcing teams into red cards receive red cards.

Chris Hibner

23-03-2011, 08:49

To take this a step further, once mentors or coaches have instilled a system that creates excellence, more students want to be a part of that system. I know the original point of your post was to point out that powerhouse teams do not have superior students, but I think to an extent the better teams in FIRST can have students who are more motivated and interested in pursuing the engineering challenges it presents.

I want to highlight what you said here because my original statement didn't say what I really wanted it to say - it was close, but I left something important out (and you added it for me).

What I meant to say about the high school students is that it is unlikely for the students at WildStang's high schools to be much better than the students of any other high school. From a probability standpoint, the inherent abilities (i.e. talents) of one population of children will not be far superior to another group. The difference is more attributable to the level of education, training, etc.

What you said is also true: success breeds success. People like to be a part of a winning team, so when the team is successful you start to attract even more students which means you can get better students (once again, probability: if you are taking 20 students on the team, your 20 will be better if 60 show up to try out than if only 30 show up.)

JackG

23-03-2011, 09:45

It has several objectionable themes.

The idea that it's okay to assume that other team's robots are built with no student involvement just because you are jealous.
The idea that student built robots are "better".
The idea that it's okay to harass and abuse other teams based on the assumptions you made about their robot design process.

Chris, I wonder if you're reading a little too much into a very simple statement. How did you get all of that out of a single line? If we look at what exactly was quoted (just the facts, ma'am), to extrapolate all of that intent out of a single line requires not only a lack of the benefit of doubt, but an assumption of ill will.

Not to sound rude, but I was asking JVN specifically, not because he could give a better answer, but I assumed there was more to that event than what he wrote. In that case, he could possibly elaborate on what was actually objectionable. As it stands, I think it's hard to see what the problem is unless you are making (less than charitable) assumptions about the mindset of those who said such a thing.

Chris is me

23-03-2011, 09:52

Chris, I wonder if you're reading a little too much into a very simple statement.

If "out of the way, student built robot coming through" is coupled with an aggressive action (a shove), I think it's pretty clear that all of those points are implied.

What context could the above have happened in where none of those points are true? I don't get what you're seeing at all.

Taylor

23-03-2011, 10:04

Chris, I wonder if you're reading a little too much into a very simple statement.

I gotta say, I'm with Chris on this one. There's a lot of difference between "ROBOT!" (which apparently merits its own thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93574)) and "Student-built robot coming through!".

To specify "Student-built" would, to me, say that the in-the-way team does not belong in the competition, and should be so embarassed by their "Adult-built" robot that they should cower in shame and allow the "proper" team through - you know, the team that "deserves" to be there and has a place in the "high school competition".

I wouldn't classify this as a display of jealousy as I would contempt. Neither of those are Inspiration, and neither of them have a place in FRC - or life for that matter.

That's (how I view) the purpose of this thread - how do we as a culture-changing-entity transform that negative, contagious, contemptuous energy into positive, infectious, inspirational energy?

TheOtherGuy

23-03-2011, 12:51

I wouldn't classify this as a display of jealousy as I would contempt. Neither of those are Inspiration, and neither of them have a place in FRC - or life for that matter.

I don't know about jealousy, to a degree it does have it's place in FRC: as a motivational tool to become something greater. When I see an excellent team performing well, I'm jealous of their students, but that quickly turns into a drive to become like that team. That's not to say it can't turn into contempt, as the events at Pittsburgh show (supposedly). It's always easier to make an accusation than to change the way you view the world, and we as humans are lethargic. This isn't really an issue involved with FIRST, it's an issue with human nature. The only thing I can see FIRST doing is clearing the symptoms, but there will always be people that don't understand, because FIRST is an organization whose goal is growth and expansion. The events in Pittsburgh may be condemnable, but I'm glad there are powerhouse teams like 1114 that can take1 attacks like this, because they're also the ones that get it and have the power to change our views on how the world should work.

1Not to say they deserve what they get, or that it's fair

Taylor

23-03-2011, 13:17

I don't know about jealousy, to a degree it does have it's place in FRC: as a motivational tool to become something greater. When I see an excellent team performing well, I'm jealous of their students, but that quickly turns into a drive to become like that team.

Which is exactly what we need to do - transform the jealousy into motivation. Was there a specific instance that "turned on the light" for you to be able to make this leap? What can we as leaders do to instill in others a similar reaction?

tim-tim

23-03-2011, 13:43

Which is exactly what we need to do - transform the jealousy into motivation. Was there a specific instance that "turned on the light" for you to be able to make this leap? What can we as leaders do to instill in others a similar reaction?

As previously stated in this thread, I used to be the jealous one. It was not until 2006 Champs when I met the teams we refer to as the "powerhouses" that I became motivated to step up to their level.

Yes, just by putting a robot on the field we become successful. However, most human nature tends to not be satisfied with the bare minimum. This being said, I have since graduated and went to college. My team has since taken leaps forward. Some of our first generation members are making it through college and returning to the area to work. What is the significance of this? We are building the connections to allow us to go the next step. We have more trained mentors in the fields we were once lacking.

I have spent numerous hours researching and asking questions to such people that are very insightful. I can tell that they are very helpful and offer more than a simple answer. We have not only wanted the help on the technical side of our team, but also on the non-technical side. We have since won a RCA this year and this would not be possible without the help of others.

How did we take these steps?
It was easy once we got over the fact that we were not those teams, and we have to apply what we have learned to the scope of our team.
- sit down and do some research, ask questions - they will answer
- go after new sponsors, targeting the capabilities you desire (we added machine shops that provided limited machining capabilities)
- set out a time line of events (take small steps, change is often hard at first)
- "offseason" is a critical R&D period, we finally went with a omni-directional drive and will be optimizing a swerve drive we developed in the off-season
- don't be afraid to fail, we all hit bumps in the road. It is how we get passed them that sets us apart

The list goes on. We have slowly transformed over the past 3-4 years to what we are today. We have one more year left on a plan we made, and now we are starting to set goals for the next several years.

For what is worth, do not judge a team based on web-appearance. Take the time to get to know them. I have had no issue getting help from them. Feel free to ask me questions about our transformation process, granted we are not a powerhouse team.

One last note: Remember to have fun during the process!

Mike Soukup

23-03-2011, 13:57

Your performance speaks for itself.
We apparently have vastly different interpretations of 'failure.' You're basing failure on our team's final product on the field. By that measure, yes we typically succeed.

What most people don't see are all the failures that lead up to ultimate success. Our secret isn't that we don't fail. The secret is that we typically fail early and often enough in the season so we have time to to recover and fix the failures. Most of the great teams operate this way. The other secret, as others have stated, is that we don't settle for bad solutions. If one of our designs is a failure, we improve it until it works.

c-parent

23-03-2011, 14:20

I find the discussion about how teams operate and build their robots interesting. I know that doing well is very important. Why? It is much easier to convince your school system/sponsors to continue the support when you do well and bring home hardware. Student enthusiasm is also difficult.

However, the real issue here is teaching the mentors to mentor. We have one mentor, very hard working and spends lots of time at the shop. He is beyond dedicated. He knows EXACTLY how his part of the bot needs to be built and tells the kids what to do, and lets them do the building under his direction. His subteam size tends to dwindle towards the end of the build season. He likes to tell other mentors how their team needs to build their part of the bot.

We have another mentor, also dedicated, also spends much time at the shop- but only with his subteam. He also knows EXACTLY how his part of the bot needs to be built. But instead of saying "this is what we need to do", he helps the students come to that place on their own. Sometimes it is a longer process to get there, and sometimes he has to use breadcrumbs to get them there. Sometimes they come up with brilliant ideas that he feels exceed his and they implement. Sometimes the team comes up with a plan that is the "same thing only different" than an otherwise standard design. He would usually go with the student based design rather than standard design (all else equal).

The difference is that subteam 1 works fast, efficient, and although built by the students, they feel like employees rather than team members. They are given chores, and a timeline. Their input does not feel valued. Subteam 2 has team members that are consistent, give up date night, and wake early for their meetings on Saturday. They do homework together so they can work more on the bot. They see their mistakes, and seek out assistance from their team members, mentor, and other resources. They learn, and they get excited about the process. They are proud of their creation.

Both mentors are wonderful people. Both want to teach the students. One is successful in teaching more than manual skills. One teaches teamwork and design.

Mentor classes to teach team building and how to encourage leadership and creativity, and how to be inclusive on your team would be a fabulous thing!

JesseK

23-03-2011, 14:30

I am of the opinion that if you are not striving for that most important of Blue Banners -- the Chairman's Award -- then you are not being all that you can be as a FIRST team, and that your students and mentors aren't getting everything out of the experience that they could be.

I'll preface this with 2 statements:
1. By "you" I mean "putting you in our shoes for a second".
2. We don't have a single banner. Yet the lack of banners is hardly an indicator of impact.

So you strive for the CA blue banner 1 year. Then you do it again for another 3-4 years, only to never be told why you're not good enough for the #1 spot in CA. The judges comments are all positive or vague. Your outreach is so insane the school board took it over because they didn't want you dealing with so much responsibility. The sheer numbers of people who've gone through programs your team started is somewhat unbelievable. Your programs have been recognized nationally with multiple awards, your DOE-approved STEM curricula have been implemented in multiple other states, 1/4 of your alumni still mentor or volunteer in FIRST, 50% of your students learn so much they get paid internships over college students, you've started the FRC/FTC/FLL teams that FIRST encourages for growth, and you/your team have been interviewed for 4 books, 2 TV shows, and featured in a couple of (mostly local) print articles. Out of breath yet?

In the end, you forget about the blue banner. The blue banner is an obsession that makes you feel like some puppet master is dangling a carrot just to play mind games with anyone who's interested. What really matters is impact, and that impact worth far more than the fabric or even the symbolism that a CA banner is made of. This becomes even more evident when you realize that an increasing amount of teams & regional events means that there is less chance you'll be noticed amongst the many interviewing for the award.

Which is why this year, we're striving for a robot banner. Woohoo!

pfreivald

23-03-2011, 14:44

2. We don't have a single banner.

Moot. Winning a blue banner is nice, but that's all it is. It is the striving for the blue banner that matters.

Competition fosters excellence -- that's all I'm saying.

Yet the lack of banners is hardly an indicator of impact.

I couldn't agree more.

tim-tim

23-03-2011, 15:01

In the end, you forget about the blue banner.

I could not agree more. After attending the Chairman's Chat at last year's Championships, our team took a totally different approach this year.

We did not do things for the sole purpose of the Chairman's Award (CA). We set out to do things that met the following criteria:
1. benefited the community in a positive way
2. could use the opportunity to pass on the importance science and technology
3. we felt like it was the right thing to do
4. it needed to be fun

Based on these requirements we set up events and made appearances. The end result, a fun way of spreading the STEM imitative to the local area. Yes, we ended up winning the Chesapeake RCA. We knew what we did was great (same scenario as you Jesse), to get a banner (our first in 10 years of existence) was just icing on the cake. We have more events lined up. Why? Because as a team we feel they are important, not because of a blue banner.

This is the approach we took. CA gives you a generic starting point, but be creative in the solutions and make sure you are doing things for the right reason.

sgreco

23-03-2011, 15:23

JaneYoung

23-03-2011, 16:01

.. how do we as a culture-changing-entity transform that negative, contagious, contemptuous energy into positive, infectious, inspirational energy?

Identify the root causes, acknowledge them, and educate in an on-going manner - team level, area level, and region level.

John provides insight by suggesting small shifts. Eventually, the culmination of small shifts creates a large shift. They already have if a small group can be fingered as the ones behind the booing, rather than an entire arena filled with boos. The shift is occurring and it, too, should be acknowledged and sustained as it develops.

A factor that should be explored is the overwhelming nature of mentoring. Yes, there are areas that provide workshops to help mentors. How many areas provide a time for mentors to understand a part of the big picture so that they can continue to grasp it and help it develop? How many areas have created a place/space for mentors to be allowed to share their doubts/concerns/frustrations and then help them turn those into fun challenges seeking creative and innovative solutions?

The minibot has created a place here in CD where some wonderful exchanges and food for thought have occurred and will likely continue to occur. Yes, it has been controversial. What's wrong with that? Why is that a negative? Are growing pains negative or are they productive, as painful as they are, when one grows through them? In the area that I'm from, turning 16 is a big deal. Change occurs when driving becomes a new development in a teen's and a family's life. 18 becomes a big deal when the teenager is viewed as an adult and has responsibilities and opportunities that were not there before. 21 is another milestone. All of those changes bring opportunity but they also bring added responsibility and some stress/tension/worry/concern. The 20th anniversary is a milestone and I think the game has reflected that. It has given all of the teams, old and new - an opportunity to see what our community is made of and how strong we are - how well-developed we are. How tough we are. How we face new challenges. Many of us talk about the beauty and inspiration behind innovation. Well, more than robots can be innovative - so can a FRC game. We all shifted. In our postmortems, many of us will look at the shift and determine how well we did as a team. Perhaps, some of us will look at the shift and determine how well we did as individual leaders. I hope the 25th anniversary provides an opportunity for another shift and that the community is curious enough and cares enough to explore it and think about and talk about it, like we have with the 20th.

Jane

MrForbes

23-03-2011, 16:31

Identify the root causes, acknowledge them, and educate in an on-going manner - team level, area level, and region level.

I wonder if this could this be a root cause of being accused of having a mentor-built robot: your robot looks like something that many students on other teams don't know how to build

What are some ways to change this mistaken perception?

2789_DrT

23-03-2011, 16:31

Hello Everyone,
I've been thinking about this for a long time. I heard some horrible, interesting stories from the Pittsburgh regional this past weekend which helped solidify my thoughts.

I managed to put these thoughts into words here:
http://blog.iamjvn.com/2011/03/another-culture-change.html

I hope you'll take a minute to read, reflect, and hopefully join me in helping to shift OUR culture.

-John

I am appalled and embarrassed by what FRC 1114 experienced and inspired by their reaction. I hope my team (FRC 2789) has an opportunity to interact with this team at some future Regional; they deserve a much warmer welcome and much more positive and gracious interactions.

Also, thank you FRC 148 for developing another awe-inspiring robot this year. Video of your robot hanging 2 ubertubes during autonomous has captivated the imagination of the administration at my school. They want to WIN (we are the only varsity sport on our campus) and they view your team as the team to beat. Because you are so awesome, they are finally starting to understand the resources we need to assemble in order to build and sustain a great FIRST team. They are FINALLY letting our team submit proposals to acquire more tools and more space so we can begin building the on-site machine shop we need to build good robots.

I can also tell that FRC 148's students belong to a team with great culture, mentorship and training because they spent a lot of time in our pit during the Alamo Regional helping us fix our minibot deployment system. Thanks again for this assistance.

Finally, JVN, I think you're an alien. That is one the highest compliments I give people. It's what I call people that are so good that they are not of this earth. When I grow up, I want to be an alien, like you.

JaneYoung

23-03-2011, 16:37

I wonder if this could this be a root cause of being accused of having a mentor-built robot: your robot looks like something that many students on other teams don't know how to build

What are some ways to change this mistaken perception?

A start would be to create another thread, Jim. With this information and question, asking for suggestions/ways that can help bring about change. This thread is exploratory in nature - that thread could be more specific in nature. Just a thought.

Jane

IKE

23-03-2011, 16:50

I wonder if this could this be a root cause of being accused of having a mentor-built robot: your robot looks like something that many students on other teams don't know how to build

What are some ways to change this mistaken perception?

This is a really cool book that talks about changing cultural behaviors:
http://www.amazon.com/Influencer-Power-Change-Anything-ebook/dp/B000UZJQSM/ref=kinw_dp_ke?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

This particular thread addresses at least 2 of 6 areas (according to the book) that are required to influence change.

I will leave it at this otherwise I will explode with a rather lengthy post on this subject...

The Student vs. Mentor debate is (in my opinion) the "Guinea Worm" of FRC.

JaneYoung

23-03-2011, 16:53

This is a really cool book that talks about changing cultural behaviors:
http://www.amazon.com/Influencer-Power-Change-Anything-ebook/dp/B000UZJQSM/ref=kinw_dp_ke?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2

This particular thread addresses at least 2 of 6 areas (according to the book) that are required to influence change.

I will leave it at this otherwise I will explode with a rather lengthy post on this subject...

The Student vs. Mentor debate is (in my opinion) the "Guinea Worm" of FRC.

Go for it, Ike. :) Teach us.

Jane

pfreivald

23-03-2011, 19:18

Hee hee. I love getting positive and negative reputation for the same comment. It makes me think I said something worth expending neurotransmitter time on...

IKE

23-03-2011, 21:26

Go for it, Ike. :) Teach us.

Jane

Don't say I didn't warn you....
****************************
If you are trying to get someone to change, then you have to have answers for some questions:

Influencer (http://www.amazon.com/Influencer-Change-Anything-Kerry-Patterson/dp/007148499X#_) talks about targeting 6 key aspects:
Personal Motivation
-Overcome Reluctance and Resistance by Connecting with Values

Personal Ability
-New behaviours require new skills. Overinvest in how to master skills and emotions.

Social Motivation
-Enlist Leaders, Partner with Opinion Leaders, and become a Leader Yourself

Social Ability
-Amplify Influence through Just in Time Teamwork

Structural Motivation
-Modestly and Intelligently reward early success. Punish only when necessary.

Structural Ability
-Using Environment to Support New Behaviours

This is a really good read that talks about some of the difficulties of erradicating dangerous or unwanted behaviours.

************************************************** **
This thread is basically a call to action for the Social Motivation and Structural Motivation. Enlist opinion leaders, Punish unwanted behaviours. What it is not covering is Modestly and Intelligently rewarding early successes.
I would argue that in many cases telling someone they are wrong will be significantly less effective than embracing that group and engaging them. If you just berate the behaviours, then at best you will convince them to change. This will be a change due to fear of persecution rather than a change of willfully wanting to change. More than likely, you will actually may make a stronger foe now with justified reasons. There are a few teams in the area that have a rather low opinion of a great team I personally have a ton of respect for. I talk with their team leads on a regular basis about what their processes are like, and what we do. When negative talk comes up about the great team, I often ask where did that information come from? I explain that hasn't been my experiences with the team, and then sight specific positive interactions I have had versus the second stories they have been told. It is still a work in progress, but it is work that is progressing.
*****************************************
Another really good tool to use the anecdote that relates to that behaviour. The "i once felt the same way as you" is a very effective means of Personal Motivation and Personal Ability. Instead of directly telling someone they are wrong, sharing an anecdote of when you were a "hater" or how you have dealt with jealousy in the past in both negative and positive manners. Showcase how the positive jealousy response improved the situation and how the negative response did not.

There are a lot of great examples in this thread. The anecdote is powerful because it explains your motivation to make a change, and that you were able to do it.

*************************************
Another key aspect that we are getting here in Michigan is some Structural Motiviation, and Structural Ability.

If you are "moderate to low resource" team in the rest of FRC, you typically only go to 1 event. Going to 1 event does a couple things. It adds a lot of pressure to your performance and expectations. You have spent a lot of time, money, and effort to compete at this 1 event only to have your hopes and dreams shattered due to XYZ failure. When you look across the pits you see a team that rises above those issues and kicks your butt. What you don't know is they have already had those issues and fixed them.
The XYZ failure also gives you an excuse why you weren't better. If we hadn't had XYZ break, then we would have been really awesome. Of course we had a kid do XYZ, so we are better by having the kid do XYZ and it fail, then to have mentors make the same part/code, and it not fail. In reality it has very little to "who" did XYZ, and is more of a matter of when and how XYZ got tested and fixed (Build week 4, build week 6, on the practice field, in compeition...). Good teams break their season enders before they compete. They learned this by competing at multiple events and broke things at the first event, fixed them at the second, did better, and then vowed to test/break it before their first event next year.
Here, because every team has 2 events, this gets rid of the excuse, and you have to prove it. Yes teams still have a lot of trouble at their first event, but almost everybody improves by their second. Because of this, they have a better appreciation of what it takes to be really good. This has been an underlying "personal motivation" adopted by many teams to get better. They also have a better understanding of the difference between really good, and Great. Any team can be really good with modest resources, hard work, and SMART work. Greatness is much more difficult. Greatness does require more resources (than modest). These resources include experience, funds, and contacts mostly.
I cannot think of a great team that competes at only 1 regional. There are several good ones, but I cannot think of a single Great one.

The district sturcutre also has more events which allow for more teams to share in a win. There are certain regions that would be excessively difficult to compete in. Michigan was one of these. Even with 3 events, the same teams always took the top spots. Now with 9 events, there is more sharing. There are 27 event winner slots. There are 9 District Chairman's award slots.

The district structure is not a cure to this issue, but I do believe it helps quite a bit with the structural motivation and ability aspects.

Other Structural Ability/Motivational items would include teaming with young teams. Both rookies and other young teams. The Jealousy response is quite prevalent throughout all of humanity, so just assume it will be a natural response. Through partnerships and mentoring, you can work against these natural tendencies. You can also help make the teams stronger. Which reduces the jealousy potential.

***********************************************

The key to change is strict adherence to covering all 6 categories.

***********************************************
The reason I compare it to the "guinea worm", is the guinea work is a painful plague that has been around for a long time. The worm causes painful sores on the limbs that can only be soothed in developing countries by submersing yourself in water. Once in the water, the sores release tihe microscopic larvae into the villages water supply, and thus infect others, and so the cycle continues.

The comments made that originated this thread are a plague as well. Rookie teams tend to start out appreciate role model teams and the assistance that team may have given them. The assistance goes away (usually to support a different rookie), and the team is left on their own. The pain of not doing well is frequently soothed by mentors or parents explaining the reason that team is better is because the mentors do everything. This infects the students and spreads like the guinea worm among their team. Within a year or two, the plague matures into taunts, boos, and bullying statements. This is overheard by others. Some know to get away from that sort of behaviour, but others are infected. And so the cycle repeats. This isn't helped when teams that have a fair amount of success look down at other teams. Yes, it does happen that way too.

Please note, I am not saying that student-"only" teams are the plague. They are cool in my book. Teams that look down on other teams are the plague. This comes from any and all directions (up, down, left, and right).

Koko Ed

24-03-2011, 07:01

There are many ways people measure excellence in FIRST. To some it is all about the robot and I am impressed with the work and organization of teh "elite teams". they are amazing to watch compete on the field.
But time in and time out the one team that never ceases to amaze me when I am in their presence is team 365 MOE. It amazes me how their presence at a regional takes the place over and affects so many teams. They are always in other teams pits helping teams get their robots ready for the competition. They may not always have the best robot but they are thorough and professional inn every aspect. they are enthusiastic and gracious in victory and defeat ( and I've seen plenty of teams in my travels who do not take defeat well at all. This is one lesson they should truly take from MOE). To me they are the pinnacle of what FIRST should strive to be.

IKE

24-03-2011, 08:15

To me they are the pinnacle of what FIRST should strive to be.

I think the Chairman's Judges agree with you...

pfreivald

24-03-2011, 12:43

clap clap
clap clap
clapclapclapclap
GO MOE!

PayneTrain

24-03-2011, 18:14

^They are so infectious, other teams did their cheer when MOE won awards at Chesapeake. Top to bottom class act. No disrespect to the 08-10 Chairman's Winners, but MOE is very in sync to the goals of FIRST and will likely become the second team to win two Chairman's Awards.

David Doerr

24-03-2011, 18:30

The mentor-built student-built debate reminds me of the struggle I had getting my mind around my change in roles in moving to FRC after coaching FLL. In FLL, coaches are admonished that 'kids do the work'. FIRST clearly spells out the role of a coach in the coach's handbook which says "the team must design and build the robot, not you or any other adult", and in the FLL Core Values which reads "We do the work to find solutions with guidance from our coaches and mentors". Even with those reasonably clear statements there is still an endless debate in FLL over what level of "guidance" a coach should provide.

Reading discussion here on Chief Delphi, the mentor/student relationship seems to be regarded as one of the central foci of FRC. Dave Lavery is quoted as saying that you've missed the point without it. Also, it appears to be a component unique to FRC. But, as a new mentor coming into FRC and looking into the mentor resource materials I found nothing to indicate that the FRC mentor/student relationship is any different than that in FLL or any other similar program.

I do admit I don't see anything in the FRC Mentoring Guide saying that mentors should not design or build part or even all of their team's robot -- "It doesn't say you can't...", to borrow an often-used FIRST phrase. ;)

But...

I don't find it surprising that some -- even many -- are not aware of a special mentor/student relationship that is unique to FRC where mentors do some or a lot of "The Work".

I learned about my role as an FRC mentor by watching and listening to other mentors on my team. Had I talked to mentors from other teams I probably would have a heard different stories about the role of a mentor.

It seems to me that since the FRC mentor/student relationship is special and unique it should be featured and explained prominently in the official mentor resource materials, along with specific examples of how it is implemented by various teams. People shouldn't have to search for a speech made by Dave Lavery that's buried somewhere on Chief Delphi or have to read between the lines in the FRC Mentoring Guide. There should be a FRC Mentor-Student Relationship chapter, or even a book.

Reading about "I Do, You Watch, ... You Do, I Watch" in the mentoring guide leaves me with lots of questions about what exactly should I do and when should I do it. I admit I'm one of those Aspergers-types that often has to be hit over the head with an idea spelled out to me, but it would really help if I could see something official -- even a paragraph -- letting me know if it's OK for a mentor to dirty his/her hands with 50% building, 100% building, a subsystem, the software, or nothing at all. I've had conversations with FRC leaders who I respect who opine on opposite sides of this debate.

Maybe there could be a mentor rule book.

It could be very short with an entry like:
<M0> Anything goes -- you and your team decide

Or:
<M0> Mentors shall keep their hands behind their backs always.

Or a bit longer with entries like:
<M2482> Each student on the electrical team will be responsible for insertion of at least one power wire into the power distribution board. If there are more students than power wires, enough wires will be removed for reconnection so that each student is able to experience the insertion of at least one wire, as long as said wires comply with the rules set forth in the robot manual, and as long as the aforementioned students are of pre-college age. Post high-school age team members should refer to rule <M6855>.

;)

However, unless the rule is <M0>, I think there will always be a debate similar to the one over what level of "guidance" is legal in FLL.

This mentor/student relationship stuff seems to me headline material right up there with Inspiration, It's More Fun To Create A Video Game Than Play One, and Gracious Professionalism. That is why I believe it's important that it be thoroughly and officially explained **and endorsed** in the FIRST mentor resources.