A plead to FIRST, anyone else agree?

[Seathan93]

As a senior who has spent 4 years on a FIRST team, I was a bit disappointed with FIRST this year. I realize I may not have been a part of the program as long as some mentors, but that doesn't mean I haven't seen FIRST evolve at all.

Here are some of the issues I'm having with FIRST, and I'd like to know who agrees with me, and who doesn't:

FIRST, (ahh...the standard pun) In my opinion, FIRST has become extremely heavy handed with the "real meaning of FIRST." I completely understand, "it's not about the robots," but that doesn't mean you need to state that every five minutes. 4 years ago when I joined the team, everything was about Gracious Professionalism, being professional, competitive, but gracious to others and cooperative. That felt enough for me. The competition was fun, my team was extremely competitive, but after an entire build season preparing for the competition, why shouldn't they be? Yes, the gracious part lacked here and there, nothing major, but in the heat of the competition, the competitive side took over a bit. But that was ok! After the competition, life returned to normal, whether we moved on to the championship, or returned home exhausted after a long season.

Then...there was coopertition. As if Gracious Professionalism weren't enough, FIRST brought out Coopertition (competition and cooperation). Basically everything Gracious Professionalisms embodied, but much more explicit. On top of that, the games were changed to make it such that the robots who scored the highest, did not necessarily rank the highest. I understood the concept, help other teams out, get games where the score is more even, and then everyone wins. But, in the middle of a competition, there are times where even helping another team out, will not change how they play on the field. The rules of the games have even become more strict, since coopertition has come out. I won't get into that now, that's another point, but FIRST has killed some of the innovation by restricting how you can play a game to such an extreme, and red carding anything slightly competitive.

My main point here, is that it's killing the competition. After build season, the competition should be fun, it should be the place where all 6 weeks of hard work can be vented in the competitive spirit. Yes, it should be done in a gracious way, but the competitive side of FIRST shouldn't be removed, that's half of what makes it fun.

I think FIRST needs to back off a bit on the speeches about how it's not about the robots. That's a good way to start off the season, but afterwards, especially at the competetion, after the 8th time they mention how it's not about the robots I'm thinking "I THINK WE GOT IT, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE ROBOTS, LET'S GET ON TO THE COMPETITION!"

I think FIRST needs to bring back some of the competitive aspects of previous competitions. They need to accept, 4, 5 weeks, even further, into the build season, that some teams may have found ways to play the game they hadn't thought of. I agree, if it's a cheap way to win (such as winning by red carding the opponent...which could be removed if the red cards were toned down), then yes that needs to be addressed, but if it's just an alternate way, it's an innovation, that's part of the competition. Teams will formulate ways to defend against it.

SECOND.

Robotics is nerdy. We all know it. Yes, not every person on robotics is your stereotypical nerd, and to be honest, it's a silly stereotype, but you're not attracting anyone to FIRST by claiming you're not nerdy. Everyone knows robotics is nerdy. It's just part of life. Yes, I get the "change the culture," but you're not going to change it by being in denial.

For the first time in my 4 years on FIRST, during the first week of build season, I was almost ashamed to be associated with the program. I think we all know what I'm talking about, and if you don't, then thankfully you probably didn't see the video. The splash page on usfirst, with a video of robotics footage overlay-ed by Will.I.Am's 2 sentence quote from kick off played over and over again.

Now, I appreciate what FIRST was trying to accomplish, but to be honest, that was by far the most ridiculous thing I had ever seen. I think I died a bit inside when I saw that video.

If you want to change the culture, great, but you're going about it wrong. Stop trying to deny that robotics is nerdy. We all know it is, and, presumably, we're all fine with it, I know I really couldn't care less. It really does not spell self confidence, something that FIRST needs if you want to attract people to FIRST, to deny that it's nerdy. Hell, even mentioning that it's nerdy, even if you say you're not, comes across as nerdy.

Combining parts one and two for a moment I'd like to say, the "true message of FIRST" is great. It is fantastic, and it's good to know it's there. That being said, it's a great message for sponsors, mentors, and parents. You're not going to get students interested in robotics (especially if you want it to be taken as seriously as a sport) by constantly saying the message of FIRST and by making the competitions less competitive.

THIRD.

The games. I loved breakaway. Not so much the game, I would give my favorite game of my 4 years to Overdrive, but because of the philosophy behind it. It was getting robotics to be more spectator friendly. I agree that LOGOMOTION was somewhat spectator friendly, the more logos, and the more lights on the minibot towers, the more points, but it was seriously lacking.

I felt there was something seriously wrong with FIRST this year when I learned we were being awarded points to put up shameless advertising for FIRST, and the more we advertised the more we were awarded. Something about that just felt wrong from the very outset. Mix in with that the politics about FTC (by the way, the minibot aspect of the game was the only bit I got excited about at kick off) and all that, led to a very wrong gut feeling. In fact, going back to the rules bit, they did everything in their power to make the advertising as streamlined as possible, putting in a 30pt penalty for pinning, and making defense hard to accomplish without a red card.


In summation, in case you didn't want to read that block of text, or my ideas were a bit too spread out.

1. The "true" message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200000 times.
2. Go back to more competition, you're beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.
3. Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it's not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it's about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.
4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
5. You were on a good track with the "spectator friendly" game breakaway, continue on that track.

Those are my opinions, feel free to disagree with me, or agree. I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed these aspects.

-Ian

[Grim Tuesday]

I agree with your points in many areas. I should take some time to write a lengthy response later, but for now, I just want to say, you hit the nail right on the head.

[gblake]

Smithers - Release the hounds....

This should be an interesting thread to watch.

Blake
PS: I think my opinions about most of this have been liberally spread across other threads over the last few years. So I look forward to reading some new thoughts and won't inflict my retreads on you.

[Andrew Lawrence]

I completely agree with #3! Though this year's game wasn't bad, Breakaway was my favorite! Not only is it a fun game to watch, but it was more organized, easier to observe, and most importantly, relatable to people not in the competition! When we played Breakaway, the FIRST thing that we saw, and liked, were the bumps separating the field into three separate areas. It was a lot easier to see your robot, and your opponent's robot, since most of the time there were just 2 or 3 robots per section. This year, we'd waste whole seconds (A long time in an FRC match), figuring out where our robot was in the huge heap of robots from both alliances. Also, Breakaway was robot soccer! Tell me one person in the world who doesn't know what soccer is! From the spectator's point of view, as soon as you saw the field, and the way the robots played, you knew it was robot soccer! There were soccer balls, goals, and if you looked at the right time, robots playing defense! It was easy to understand, so naturally anybody non-robotics related understood, and liked the game! This year, everyone I brought to watch had no idea what was going on! They didn't know what the game was about, they had no idea where our robot was in the moshpit of madness, and were totally confused about the way the game was played, the scoring, and the penalties. Just a note to FIRST (If you're reading this), while all of your games are exciting and innovating for the people playing in them, you have to remember the spectators who know nothing about what we are doing.

[synth3tk]

I agree with your first two points, every character and word.

The third, not-so-much. I don't see anything wrong with incorporating some branding into the game. My problem with the game is pretty much summed up by SuperNerd's post immediately above mine.

[adriaf]

I am also a 4 year member of an FRC team, and yes, this year's game is somewhat poorly organized. Within 5 years, the same concept of the two games (rack and roll, logomotion) were brought up. Only 5 years. It just seems too close. And quite unfair to those teams who started in 08 (like us) compared to those who were here before 07. Breakaway and Overdrive were, hands down, one of the best games. It was incredibly well organized, well thought of, the ratio of points to penalties. I thought FIRST would come up with something better this year since it is the 20th anniversary. I'm wondering if the movie directors (the ones from the GDC last year) helped with this years game. I heard one was from Cirque du Soleil.

[Seathan93]

The third, not-so-much. I don't see anything wrong with incorporating some branding into the game. My problem with the game is pretty much summed up by SuperNerd's post immediately above mine.

While the advertising did annoy my a bit, I would have to agree that SuperNerd's post is much more the problem I intended to stress, I got a bit caught up in the advertising bit.

[PayneTrain]

I was just annoyed to find out FIRST in 2010 was apparently shocked that an inherently-defensive game was low scoring, so now rules deducting points need to be made so teams can score more points.

It's mindboggling to look at old robots my team had, where there were no bumpers: just unbendable, lock-tight, well-crafted, high quality machine robustness keeping the bot together. In fact, while the 07 and 08 robots are dead and gone, the 01, and drive trains of 00, 02, 03-2, and 04-6 are still intact. The endgames required ridiculous challenges.

2010 was a flashback to the true engineering challenges that FIRST required. the 07, 09, and 11 competitions don't require teams to do anything relatively astonishing. I will admit Lunacy was my favorite, but in the end, it was basketball-tag on the "moon." It wasn't tough to figure out like navigating through a short tunnel or over a hill, or possessing a ball without truly "holding it." 07 required teams to use a rather stereotypical gripper to achieve the main goal, as we do in 2011.

Will we get a true engineering challenge in 2012? Will we get a ranking system that makes sense? Will I do cartwheels at the Virginia Regional? All this and more next year.

[ahollenbach]

I guess I don't have much knowledge as a rookie to FIRST (although I've heard Phil Szymanowski go on and on about it), but I disagree with many of your points, and in general (sorry for the massive generalization) with all people who make open letters, and pleas, etc. If you aren't having fun, you aren't doing it right. The competitions account for (assuming you compete three times in a season) a mere 9 days. Build season (and the hype leading up to kickoff) lasts nearly 2 months. Enough, though. Let me address each point.

1. The "true" message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200000 times.
It's a tiny price to pay for having the opportunity to compete with the upcoming brightest minds in the world. Four years ago, I would never have dreamed of the exposure I've received, developing a professional website, designing a 150 pound robot, and learning to create accurate CAD drawings of it. The competitions are immense, and so if they want to spend a few minutes out of the three days to mention their slogans, they can.

2. Go back to more competition, you're beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.
I don't even know where this comes from. I see robots out there that can do incredible things, built by veteran and rookie teams alike. The competitions have me on the edge of my seat, whether in person, or seeing it all on a tiny computer screen. This year, just like many of the past years, has been highly competitive. In fact, it is one of the first years that teams are competing to hit the score barrier, which just furthers the competition. Competition hasn't gone anywhere; it's still thriving in the FIRST regionals.
In terms of cooperation, that's how the real world works. You learn to cooperate to compete against your opponents when they're at their best. And yes, people have been complaining about minibot schematic stealing, but FIRST couldn't have anticipated that. They aren't perfect.

3. Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it's not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it's about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.
Why? FIRST has brought wonderful engineering experience to more than a quarter of a million kids from all walks of life, all around the world. They need to get their name out there, so more people see it as an interesting thing to do. You can still inspire a generation - in fact, you will be reaching a larger audience in the next generation. Also, what politics do you speak of?
On another note, the "shameless advertising"? Let's not even call it that. Instead of the circular gamepieces from Rack 'N' Roll, FIRST stepped up the challenge by bringing in different shapes, and the logo bonus keeps the driver on his game. It also creates an awesome back-and-forth nail biting when two excellent alliances go head to head. Don't believe me? Watch footage from the quarter-finals at Florida, where both alliances went past the 80 point mark in all three matches.

4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
OK, I'll agree with you a little there. The Will.i.am thing was a bit overplayed, but all in all, their point was not dumb. Robotics isn't all nerdy, and FIRST is not all robotics. Half of our team also learns about finances, professional presentations, web design, and many other core skills that really have nothing to do with cRios and pneumatic cylinders. So, the not-as-nerdy kids could join that aspect of FIRST (which is equally as important). But who's to say building robots has to be nerdy? Yes, it takes smarts, and interest in robotics, but are all engineers nerdy? Is it nerdy to know how to weld or use a milling machine? Not really.

5. You were on a good track with the "spectator friendly" game breakaway, continue on that track.
I can't speak to strongly, except that I've seen many videos from the past 4-5 years' games, and I have to say that LogoMotion is one of the most interesting games that FIRST has thought up. Not only does it address the veteran teams with a challenge - hanging the top row quickly and efficiently, but it allows rookie teams to also be competitive, using a defensive/minibot emphasis. Aside from the all around approach to game design, actually watching games are a thrill. Seeing logos being hung doesn't take away from the interest factor of the game at all.

In conclusion, this is an awesome program, an awesome game, and an awesome experience. Whatever "complaints" you might have aren't that important in the grand scheme of things, where you are getting a head start on your college and professional career.

[Andrew Lawrence]

If you aren't having fun, you aren't doing it right.

We never said we are not having fun! Every FIRST competition is fun! What I have been saying (and others), is that it doesn't seem as fun for the audience! WE love FIRST, because we know all about it, and the great things it has done for us! Everyone else, our spectators, don't know this! They haven't felt the greatness of FIRST, the fun in the building season, and the experience gained from being on a FIRST team! THEY don't know that what we're doing now will be saving lives, and innovating the future! All they know is there are a bunch of nerds in one building playing with robots! They don't know anything else! But that's the vision of FIRST! We are here not only to learn and educate people, but to enlighten the world of this "New Cool" that we're doing. How can we expect them to understand what FIRST is doing, when they can't understand what WE are doing? For my team, Breakaway introduced the rest of our school to robotics. We showed off our robots before, but not until the robot-soccer like game of Breakaway did our school, and the community around us, realize what great things we are doing. If we incorporate robotics into popular, well-known activities in society, then everyone else will get interested!

This is just my $00.02 on this topic.

[TEE]

I am also a 4 year member of an FRC team, and yes, this year's game is somewhat poorly organized. Within 5 years, the same concept of the two games (rack and roll, logomotion) were brought up. Only 5 years. It just seems too close. And quite unfair to those teams who started in 08 (like us) compared to those who were here before 07. Breakaway and Overdrive were, hands down, one of the best games. It was incredibly well organized, well thought of, the ratio of points to penalties. I thought FIRST would come up with something better this year since it is the 20th anniversary. I'm wondering if the movie directors (the ones from the GDC last year) helped with this years game. I heard one was from Cirque du Soleil.

I totally agree with your point about the games, and I would go slightly further to say that Lunacy was a better game as well. The game is simple: put orbit balls in your opponents' trailers and defend your own trailer.

As for logomotion, the moment they brought out the tubes, I just about cried... tubes are difficult to handle, not all that durable, and in all honesty, what fun is there in playing with an inflated tube (without water)?

OP: I would also agree that the true message is getting repeated far too often, but also that the message is straying from what it was when I was a freshman. It seems less focused on innovating, competing and learning and more focused on expanding FIRST... and to be honest, it seems to me like FIRST is playing politics this year more than ever: "don't just say you're on a robotics team, say you're on a FIRST robotics team", the minibot FTC vs. VEX debacle, and the fact that the best way to score points is to make FIRST logos -__-

(btw, my favorite game was Overdrive as well, followed by Breakaway)

[Akash Rastogi]

What the heck is up with so many kids and adults if FIRST being obsessed with the word nerd. Nerdlove is not something to be proud of, the fact that you're so proud of acting like FIRST is a little cult of nerds is so frustrating and annoying.

The best mentors I know in FRC are intelligent people, what the heck constitutes them as nerds? The majority of the students on Team 11 are varisty and junior varsity athletes. Our captains are also athletes. I can name a lot of teams who are the same way. The kids on 3553 are mostly from the football team as well.

What do you really even know about other teams and other people?

So really, this pisses me off (as you call tell by this post).

Have fun with treating FRC like a little cult of nerds.

[RoboTigers1796]

I say, we all come together and boycott until they promise a new never before seen exciting game that makes the playing field even for all teams veterans and rookies..

[mwtidd]

I will post in full tomorrow but for now. Logomotion really isn't spectator friendlym the last game where spectators could follow the whole match was 04 and maybe 07. The key didderence is goals in the center of the field. By spreading. Out the goals it makes it hard to figure out who is scoring and who is winning. Breakaway had the same problem. It works in sports cause there is one ball. First shoiuld consider the seven rule when designing games. The human mind can only process 7 pieces of information. Logomotion is impi
Ossible to follow to the untrained mindm same thing in breakaway.

Sorry for all the fat thumbing

[Andrew Lawrence]

What the heck is up with so many kids and adults if FIRST being obsessed with the word nerd. Nerdlove is not something to be proud of, the fact that you're so proud of acting like FIRST is a little cult of nerds is so frustrating and annoying.

The best mentors I know in FRC are intelligent people, what the heck constitutes them as nerds? The majority of the students on Team 11 are varisty and junior varsity athletes. Our captains are also athletes. I can name a lot of teams who are the same way. The kids on 3553 are mostly from the football team as well.

What do you really even know about other teams and other people?

So really, this pisses me off (as you call tell by this post).

Have fun with treating FRC like a little cult of nerds.

And you're saying the term "Nerd" is to be taken offensively? To me and my team, "Nerd" happens to be a compliment! It is used to mean respect! One day, "Nerds" will be ruling this world! Why are you acting like it's a bad thing? It's like a a jock saying their not a jock! And for the record, we had a member on our team who was varsity captain of the football team, and he had the word "Nerd" specifically printed on his uniform. I don't see how you can think being a "Nerd" is bad. I can't speak for everybody, but I'm proud to be a "Nerd"!!! :D

[Andrew Schreiber]

I say, we all come together and boycott until they promise a new never before seen exciting game that makes the playing field even for all teams veterans and rookies..

If you think that is a good solution then perhaps you should do that...

[George A.]

I really enjoyed reading the OP's message, and agree with a lot of their posts. But I always took a step back and thought of WHY I liked their post so much, and here's what I came up with.


Granted take this with a grain of salt so I don't sound like a crochety old man.

As far as the message repetition goes, I do agree that it does get a little grating after several iterations. I remember when I was a rookie (back in '01) the message was clear "let's spread the word of FIRST so we can grow to every school in America"...11 years later the message is still pretty much the same thing. It isn't changing at all, and I think that's what it's growing tired of. The message that they are giving us is to go out and show the world that we're not a bunch of shut-ins with little robots, that we have become mainstream. In my opinion, the best way to accomplish this is SHOW people not TELL them.

The best way to demonstrate this, is to appeal to the common spectator that wouldn't otherwise know of us. For instance, when a comic book movie comes out, the movie studios aren't making it FOR the die hard fans of the comic (because they know that the die hards will see it regardless), they're making it for Joe Schmoe that wouldn't normally go see something like that. We have to do the same thing. Yes the games are interesting for us to watch because we know the blood sweat and tears that went into designing our robot. But unless we start pumping out materials that makes the average person go "holy @#!> that's awesome" it's not going to do us any good. '08, '06' and '04 are good examples, because the games were high action, high scoring and made people excited to watch it.

I also agree that it's become WAY too political for our own good, so much so that it often trumps the events themselves. Yes meeting politicians is a great honor, but not when it inconveniences thousands of people.

One particularly egregious example of this was the 2008 NYC regional. We all knew that the mayor of NYC was going to visit, but the only problem was that we didn't know WHEN he was coming. Well he didn't make it in time for opening ceremonies on the last day of competition, but he did make it in the afternoon. In order to accommodate him, we stopped qualifying matches with TWO matches to go, and we stopped for lunch. Then we came back, he talked for 5 minutes (and made a corny joke about how we should build a robot to help the Knicks) and then was wisked away to the back rooms. After that we played the last 2 matches, then immediately went into alliance selections, and then immediately into eliminations. The teams had NO time to prepare or strategize, and it was very very unfair and totally interrupted the flow of the competition.

Granted I might be making a bigger deal out of the mayor's disruption than need be, but it really irked me that we had to put an entire regional on hold and not let teams compete to the best of their ability because he decided to show up when he did.


Well I could rant a lot more but I think I've outstayed my welcome.

[synth3tk]

Something to keep in mind:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nerd
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nerd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd

[Andrew Lawrence]

Just to get this straight, this thread is about the way FIRST makes its games each year, and what we'd like to change. If you'd like to debate if being called a "Nerd" is a bad thing, please start another thread.

Thank you.

[davidthefat]

I am proud to be a nerd. Just saying. I would define a nerd as an addict... Addicted to knowledge. Some things I do in life is just for the pure knowledge gained from it. Sure, writing in Assembly probably will not give an advantage to my team, but I am doing it for the knowledge gained from the experience.

I will be frank with you, I do not like how FRC is run, but I really can't do much about it. I do not like the standardization of every aspect of the game.

[EricDrost]

And you're saying the term "Nerd" is to be taken offensively? To me and my team, "Nerd" happens to be a compliment! It is used to mean respect! One day, "Nerds" will be ruling this world! Why are you acting like it's a bad thing? It's like a a jock saying their not a jock! And for the record, we had a member on our team who was varsity captain of the football team, and he had the word "Nerd" specifically printed on his uniform. I don't see how you can think being a "Nerd" is bad. I can't speak for everybody, but I'm proud to be a "Nerd"!!! :D

The word "nerd" denotes: "an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit".

Being single-minded and obsessed is not exactly healthy. Variety is the spice of life.

Acting like FIRST is, to use Akash's words, a cult of nerds is counterproductive to FIRST becoming accepted in mainstream culture.

[JaneYoung]

If we give this thread a chance, it could be a very thought-provoking thread and provide a lot of insight into what people are thinking as we move towards the end of a long season. I'd like to see a thoughtful discussion with some thoughtful posts contributed rather than watch the discussion devolve into blanket generalizations and accusations. Those are never interesting or fun.

Jane

[ratdude747]

1. The "true" message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200000 times.
2. Go back to more competition, you're beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.
3. Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it's not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it's about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.
4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
5. You were on a good track with the "spectator friendly" game breakaway, continue on that track.

1. agreed.

2. agreed. the coopertion i think is a shot to the foot. for gaining publicity. If you want FIRST to be come adopted as a sport, then there MUST be competion. thats what most people want to see. GP is great off the field, but on the field it should be a show of who has the best bot. you know you have a bad ranking system when boxes on wheels end up as a allaince captains

3. agreed.

4. i think you have it half right. robotics can be nerdy but is not always nerdy. we need to accept that we can be nerds but also accept that we not always nerds. FIRST needs to as well.

5. agreed. i think games should be:

1. easy to get the basic concept of
2. a good mix of offence AND defense
3. challenging
4. simple fielded and using easy to find game pieces (to ease up build season)
5. setup so there are no sudden death situation other than red cards (like heavy endgame bonuses)

[R.C.]

And you're saying the term "Nerd" is to be taken offensively? To me and my team, "Nerd" happens to be a compliment! It is used to mean respect! One day, "Nerds" will be ruling this world! Why are you acting like it's a bad thing? It's like a a jock saying their not a jock! And for the record, we had a member on our team who was varsity captain of the football team, and he had the word "Nerd" specifically printed on his uniform. I don't see how you can think being a "Nerd" is bad. I can't speak for everybody, but I'm proud to be a "Nerd"!!! :D

Ok look,

I will have to totally agree with Akash. Nerd may be "Cool" for you and your group of kids. But Nerd gives off a negative connotation, your not gonna win over many people, especially not the people FIRST is currently aiming at. The General Public.

FIRST isn't nerdy, its one of the coolest things I've ever been apart of. If we (the FIRST community) are not ready to change our own perception, how will we change others?

Personally I like what Amir (frc1717) told people at various events, we have to sell this program as the "New Cool". Many of the kids on 1323 are athletes or cheerleaders, most will even ditch practice and come to robotics because its "Cool". My kids never like to be called nerds and will promote the program as cool.

I've met a wide range of people and not one of them coming to a FIRST event for the FIRST time described it as Nerdy. Instead they called it "The Best Kept Secret".

This isn't promoting "The New Cool", but I truly believe the book and FRC1717 are on the right path and we should hop on that bandwagon instead of complaining about FIRST.

-RC

[Seathan93]

4. i think you have it half right. robotics can be nerdy but is not always nerdy. we need to accept that we can be nerds but also accept that we not always nerds. FIRST needs to as well.


I agree that FIRST isn't always nerds, and that it can be and it can also not be. What I was getting at was the approach to promoting robotics. Robotics, for the most part, no matter what we say, is seen as a nerdy activity. Whether it is or not, the continuous emphasizing of it not being nerdy, to me, seems to make it appear nerdier than it actually is. Instead of worrying about whether it's nerdy or not, accept when it is, accept when it's not, and move on. There are so many other aspects of engineering and robotics that can captivate students and children, that to focus on making it appear cool or "not nerdy" actually has the opposite effect. When we have an open lab near the end of build season, we don't worry about telling the middle schoolers it's not nerdy, join, we show them sparks flying from the dremel, metal being cut, and our robot, as is, moving around.

[Andrew Lawrence]

The word "nerd" denotes: "an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit".

Being single-minded and obsessed is not exactly healthy. Variety is the spice of life.

Then let's change the definition of "Nerd"! "Nerds" used to be frowned upon, but then one day they created the cell phone, the computer, and every useful machine currently known to man! If it weren't for the "Nerd", then we might as well be living in caves! There might as well be no medicine, cars, or technology at all!

[rcmolloy]

What the heck is up with so many kids and adults if FIRST being obsessed with the word nerd. Nerdlove is not something to be proud of, the fact that you're so proud of acting like FIRST is a little cult of nerds is so frustrating and annoying.

The best mentors I know in FRC are intelligent people, what the heck constitutes them as nerds? The majority of the students on Team 11 are varisty and junior varsity athletes. Our captains are also athletes. I can name a lot of teams who are the same way. The kids on 3553 are mostly from the football team as well.

What do you really even know about other teams and other people?

So really, this pisses me off (as you call tell by this post).

Have fun with treating FRC like a little cult of nerds.

Honestly, I always thought that the true meaning for nerd was an intellectual badass.

[Andrew Lawrence]

its one of the coolest things I've ever been apart of.
-RC

I completely agree with this statement! FRC IS cool! Can we please just leave it at that?

[Andrew Lawrence]

Honestly, I always thought that the true meaning for nerd was an intellectual badass.

rcmolloy, I love you now! New definition of "Nerd": Intellectual badass!!!!

[Alan Anderson]

Wow. I don't feel a need to debate it or to try to change anyone's mind, but I have to say I disagree with practically everything in the original post.

[Seathan93]

Ignoring the debate about the term of nerd, would you please explain why? I'm actually interested to know if people agree/disagree and more importantly why.

[Grim Tuesday]

1. The "true" message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200000 times.


I, too, feel that this message is thrown around a bit more than it needs to be. It also leads to an identity crisis for FIRST. Is it a robotics competition, as is stated in the title of FRC, or is it a coopertition, which the C could also stand for. Another issue is the true meaning of GP. Is finding a way around the rules un GP? Is tipping over another robot un GP? Is yelling "ROBOT" un GP. Noone knows. The term is getting thrown around too much, which is beginning to dilute it. Same with FIRST's message. Yes you want to inspire teens. The best way to do that is make something fun, and has to do with robotics.

2. Go back to more competition, you're beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.

Adding to what I said above, the best way to make people interested in something is to make it fun. Competition is fun, if you do it in a GP (what it means to me) manner. No catcalls, and being a general douche, but you are allowed to be competitive on the field. It is not against any FIRST principle to win.

3. Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it's not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it's about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.

If FIRST is the best way to inspire the next generation, then they are entitled to some advertising. As long as it is not replacing good old fashion FRC competition. And the way they chose to advertise this year rubbed me the wrong way. Triangle-Circle-Square logos are fun, and this game is actually quite well balanced. However, when both parts of the game are FIRST adverts, with the minibots being FTC only, that gets a bit obnoxious. And unsurprisingly, none of the best minibots use FTC parts. Who could have guessed that? Simply the fact that they wanted to force you to use those parts is just a bit annoying, and though it is a legitimate engineering challenge, it seems against FIRST ideals.

4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"

Could not agree more. The whole debacle with Will.I.Am was ridiculous. If you're going to get a high profile speaker, get someone who is genuinely interested in FIRST, not some singer guy. It is also important that FIRST embraces who are on teams: Mainly self described nerds. Our team has managed to reach out more to the middle social groups, but even when those people are at build sessions, they turn to their more nerdy sides. FIRST doesnt have to be a mainstream sport to inspire people.

<3 nerds

Just because you want to appeal to non-nerds doesnt mean that you have to alienate your fanbase of nerds.

5. You were on a good track with the "spectator friendly" game breakaway, continue on that track.

Not much more to be said. As long as the games offer a fun engineering challenge, as well as being simple, then that is the key. Just like the best robots, the games should follow the KISS principle.

[rcmolloy]

Ignoring the debate about the term of nerd, would you please explain why? I'm actually interested to know if people agree/disagree and more importantly why.

If you are ashamed of being in FIRST and participating in the coolest thing since sliced bread, then FIRST is ashamed of allowing you to participate in the first place.

[davidthefat]

GP is being used now as if people are expecting to receive gold points.

[Seathan93]

I'm not. To be honest, FIRST was probably the greatest experience of high school. It was a moment, which luckily passed when they took down the splash page. If you didn't see the video, then consider yourself lucky.

[GGCO]

You, my good friend, are a hero. I've been contemplating writing a thread very similar to this one myself, but you nailed it. Absolutely nailed it.

I'll just add some of my thoughts.

Number one. Competitions should be viewed as a celebration. I agree with FIRST here. However, teams need to learn how to celebrate for one another. That means congratulating the best and most competitive teams - who by-the-way worked their butts off for their outstanding robot. I'm pretty sure JVN had a great thread about this "culture change" within FIRST, and I'd love to see FIRST really put a lot of effort next year into jump starting it. However, they'll also need to change their attitude towards competition and teach people how to win/celebrate.

With regards to your second point, I couldn't agree more. Robotics is nerdy and we need to embrace that. Our society needs to become more nerdy, but intelligent people don't need to become like society. Ex: will.i.am should become more like your average FRC student, not the other way around.

I also think that this desire to make science and technology fun is a symptom of a much bigger problem. First, problem solving IS fun. At least for people who are going to become the future problem solvers. We do this because we love to innovate and create. It's a blast already, and we don't need FIRST to do anything (other than make it more challenging) to make it more fun. So we have to ask, who are they pandering to?

And why is there such a big concern with getting human beings to become engineers? We don't need [insert minority here] engineers - we need good engineers whether they be [insert minority here] or not. It shouldn't matter as long as they can effectively solve problems with others.

I've come to the conclusion that FIRST is confusing making problems solving experiences [I]accessible with making it fun. There's a big difference between the two. I would love to see a FRC team in every community, but not because I want every high schooler in those communities to participate. Rather, I want every higher schooler to have the opportunity to participate. Because the reality is that there are some people who just aren't cut out for the FRC. They either lack initiative, creativity, or people skills and are unwilling to obtain them.

On to your third point. I too thought it was odd to see this kind of promotion from FIRST. Using the logo as a game piece was fine especially because of the inherent challenge of designing a manipulator that could pick up all three types of pieces, but where I thought they went overboard was with the FTC kits. (Yes, I'm still complaining about them. Don't like it? Stop reading this. Now.) There were too many silly constraints that hampered innovation and stifled creativity. Also, I thought it was FIRST shamelessly squeezing a few extra dollars out of already cash strapped teams who needed, or couldn't get, the parts need required.

[Marc P.]

Then...there was coopertition. As if Gracious Professionalism weren't enough, FIRST brought out Coopertition (competition and cooperation). Basically everything Gracious Professionalisms embodied, but much more explicit. On top of that, the games were changed to make it such that the robots who scored the highest, did not necessarily rank the highest. I understood the concept, help other teams out, get games where the score is more even, and then everyone wins. But, in the middle of a competition, there are times where even helping another team out, will not change how they play on the field. The rules of the games have even become more strict, since coopertition has come out. I won't get into that now, that's another point, but FIRST has killed some of the innovation by restricting how you can play a game to such an extreme, and red carding anything slightly competitive.


I encourage anyone who thinks coopertition is a relatively recent thing to research the FRC game from 2000 (hint: look at the name).

Truth is, it's been around for a while, and it's here to stay. And it's not a bad thing. This year I see robots filling up both racks with all sorts of manipulators, from sophisticated roller claws, to tennis balls stuck on the end of two pieces of 80/20. I see multiple sub 2 second minibots with all sorts of deployment mechanisms. I see excitement in high scoring matches. Forgive me if I find that more competitive than drivetrains shoving each other around.

Maybe I get that from living through Stack Attack. Maybe I'm just getting old.

[DonRotolo]

I think FIRST needs to back off a bit on the speeches about how it's not about the robots. Disagree. If they don't continue mentioning this (and the rest, year after year) how can we expect the newbies to get that message?
I say, we all come together and boycott until they promise a new never before seen exciting game that makes the playing field even for all teams veterans and rookies..OK, you first. :rolleyes:

Or maybe YOU come up with that game? Just sayin'

[Seathan93]

Disagree. If they don't continue mentioning this (and the rest, year after year) how can we expect the newbies to get that message?


I'm fine with them mentioning the message of FIRST, and as I said, is a great message to mention during kickoff (presumably newbies are watching kickoff). In fact, they could mention it a couple times at competition.

My problem is they mention it too much, to the point of almost trivializing the meaning. It becomes about FIRST and the fact FIRST has this message rather than the principles they're trying to teach with "the message of FIRST".

[Mr V]

This years minibot sharing made the Coopertition award a good thing. Last year's Coopertition required you to score points for the other team in many cases, I know that is what we did to win it last year. So making it so that you can't score points for the other team and the other team has to score with your minibot was a great idea. It also lets you really prove it when you loan it to a high caliber team knowing full well it is highly likely you may face your own machine in the finals. Pretty much defines the concept of Coopertition and GP.

[BrendanB]

Hmmmmm

I don't think that FIRST is over stating their message. Why? Because it is THEIR message and if you take a step back it is going against the flow of traffic in our society. Look at sports team and other competitions, it is all about beating the pulp out of your opponent which in the end doesn't accomplish much in the real world. I have found this whole Gracious Professionalism and Coopertition really helpful in the work environment.

I would recommend taking a step back and thinking about what and why FIRST is what FIRST is. I also hope that we don't go as far as rash statements or actions against FIRST like boycotts because we are FIRST's customer not manager. We aren't forced to participate in FIRST. They make the game, they make the rules, they make the speeches. I LOVE competition (who doesn't), but if you honestly feel that FIRST is infringing on your ability to be competitive then why not venture into another program? I have thought about it before. FIRST isn't the only robotics/engineering program in existence.

As for the game, if the game changes each year there will be good games and bad games. I commend the GDC for coming up with 20 different FRC games with different twists and turns each year. In all honesty we can wish for a "better" game but delivering such is hard. Think in terms of your own team. We all have great ideas that we run with for 6 weeks and a lot of us wind up thinking at our regionals, "what on earth were we thinking why can't we make better robots". It isn't easy.

I am so glad that FIRST is what FIRST is. Mentoring a rookie team really opened me up to why I love FIRST. The amount of teams who helped us this year really helped us get where we are and what we accomplished. Would local teams really desire to help us if this was a high school sport? Most likely not. How many teams would lend us their mentors to stop in and see what we are doing and explain what they are doing, lend us their practice robot from the previous season to give our kids an up close look at the technology they will be using, proof read our Chairmans essay to offer suggestions and comments, old robots/parts to build our own robot, electronics the week before our regional we needed to be operational, CAD and programming tutorials for those who are venturing into new areas, and above all support at our regionals. What was even more encouraging was seeing our students turn around at our regional and scrimmage helping other teams unload, program, debug, and fix their robots.

Even after writing this post I love FIRST even more despite the ups and down but that is life.

Quick thanks to the following teams who helped us this season:

241 Pinkerton Astros, 1519 Mechanical MAYHEM, 1058 PVC Pirates, 3323 Potential Energy, 501 The PowerKnights, and ChiefDelphi/the programming sub-forum. ;)

[Mr V]

but where I thought they went overboard was with the FTC kits. (Yes, I'm still complaining about them. Don't like it? Stop reading this. Now.) There were too many silly constraints that hampered innovation and stifled creativity. Also, I thought it was FIRST shamelessly squeezing a few extra dollars out of already cash strapped teams who needed, or couldn't get, the parts need required.

The FTC mini kit was part of the first choice so if you were only going to build 1 minibot and you managed to not burn up motors you didn't have to spend much if any cash on it. Of course the motors were far from robust so we went through a few and the fact that we wanted to win the Coopertition award we did spend a lot of money.

The constraints are what did spur innovation and creativity IHMO since the only things you had to use were the motors and battery. Sure there was some limitations on materials but that is what meant you had to get creative with how you used those items.

[E. Wood]

I have two points I would like to bring up.

First is the idea that the driving principles of FIRST are brought up too many times during competitions. Yes competition is a part of FIRST but it is just a part. If you attend three regionals, it’s only nine days. If you include the six week build season really the competition is only 48 days long, start to finish. Now I understand that every team is run differently, but the teams that I am associated with work during the so called off-season to promote STEM education and participate in community service events. Compare 48 days to 317 and tell me that other things FIRST teams do are not as worthy of public airtime as the robots are. I have heard many times over my years as a student and now a mentor that FIRST uses the competition to achieve its goals. The competition is not the point, it is merely a tool. The ideas and goals of FIRST are brought up during competitions because it is the organization’s most public event and they want the public to know that FIRST is about more than a robotics competition. That’s why the two highest awards given have nothing to do with the robots performance but instead with a team’s ability to achieve the goals of FIRST. If you are unsure of what these goals are visit the FIRST website and read their mission statement.

Also I happen to work with some wonderful, very talented students who do not consider themselves "nerds". Some of these students do not work on the robot and are inspired and excited by the education and outreach side of our teams. Others of these students do work on the robot but do not differ from other students their age in way besides the fact that they are on a FIRST team. I too do not consider myself a "nerd". Sure, I have what you may call "nerdy" moments and be an engineer by trade but this does not automatically make me a nerd. I believe that FIRST students can be very creative, bright students but to call us all "nerds" is unfair. That is a title that must be accept and carried by each individual person. If you want to be a nerd, good for you, there is nothing wrong with that, but some of us have other titles in mind for ourselves.

[548swimmer]

There are so many other aspects of engineering and robotics that can captivate students and children, that to focus on making it appear cool or "not nerdy" actually has the opposite effect.

This is incredibly true. When I was touring college campuses between my junior and senior year, the campuses that made a big deal about safety often caused me to believe they were unsafe. If there really was no concern for safety, you wouldn't think to mention it in the presentation.

[Laaba 80]

I didnt like ranking points used as a tie breaker between teams with the same amount of wins. I was one of the few who enjoyed using it last year for the ranking system, but this year it did not seem to work. At one of our competitions, 5 out of our 9 matches our opponents were not able to score a single point. Last year we could score for our opponents, but this year there is no way to score for them. It really bothered me that we couldnt do anything to overcome the other teams that shared our W/L record.

[ajd]

I too do not consider myself a "nerd". Sure, I have what you may call "nerdy" moments and be an engineer by trade but this does not automatically make me a nerd. I believe that FIRST students can be very creative, bright students but to call us all "nerds" is unfair. That is a title that must be accept and carried by each individual person. If you want to be a nerd, good for you, there is nothing wrong with that, but some of us have other titles in mind for ourselves.

The trouble with the "nerd" label is the same as the trouble with any label (think "jock," "learning disabled," "ADD," "goodie two-shoes," "communist"): they obscure the real, individual people they are applied to.

Part of FIRST's mission is encouraging kids to move away from the culture where kids inordinately look up to music/sports stars. It's trying to break the culture where the most athletic/social students are often considered the "elite" and the more intellectually-/mechanically-/technically-/whatever-inclined are lower on the totem pole. But it must be very careful to avoid encouraging the "nerds" to form cliques of their own. Society needs all types, and I feel that FIRST's rhetoric sometimes fails to acknowledge that.

[IanW]

I just wanted to say that I agree with the OP about his first point. While I entirely understand the importance of spreading FIRST's message, I think there does come a point when it begins to be diluted. At some point, the ideas of Coopertition and Gracious Professionalism become so ambiguous through usage that it becomes difficult (for me at least) to understand their true meaning. Not just their general gist, but the values they are meant to instill in students.
Also, I think his point about "nerdiness" was grossly misunderstood, as evidenced by those who believed he was talking about making FIRST a "nerd club". Instead, it is more about accepting that STEM education and programs like FIRST are viewed as for people who are nerdy (in the not incredibly insulting way). However, it is very important to point out that the nerdy side is not the only side of FIRST, which is something my team needs to work on. Ultimately, I think that trying to convince others that FIRST is anything other than it is will not work.

[Mr V]

On the subject of "nerds" and other labels/groups of people, I was talking to another mentor at the Seattle regional. Not sure how we got around to it, but he shared what he thought was the greatest thing that has came about as a result of their program. It was that it got two groups together the "nerds" the "gear heads" and working side by side they found out that they were more alike than different and basically went along way to erasing those labels.

[Aren_Hill]

My general attitude about the competition aspect:

When I show up at competition, the team has put countless hours of work into the robot and strategy, and will put 100% effort towards putting the best possible product* on the field. And when it gets to the field we'll compete like no tomorrow, for doing anything else is disrespectful to our own efforts, and to our competitors.

That being said, you stop by our pit, you need help of any sort (except psychiatric we need that ourselves), we will do whatever is within our power to help you, Fasteners, tools, troubleshooting, rebuilding...

You ask, we'll help.

For the goal of pitting our creation against the toughest opponents we'll help.

I'd much rather loose a match fighting tooth and nail for it to someone running at 100% we helped, than to win against a crippled robot.

A sense of accomplishment is a very Inspiring thing

That sense of accomplishment can come from losses just as much from wins, you just need the right viewpoint.

I've never been one for the "you did your best" and other "everyone's a winner" sayings, they don't push you, they don't get you to analyze what went wrong and figure out where to improve. If i truly tried my hardest I would've accomplished my goal, if I fell short I WILL find out where and why, and remedy it.

A sense of accomplishment from hard work is getting our butts handed to us by 111 and 2826 in the Wisconsin finals, and working for a solid week to bring the battle to within a minibot fuse from a 3rd match at Midwest.

Bring your A game, wherever you go, I hope FIRST never pushes anything different


*product is robot, strategy, driveteam, communication

[ratdude747]

My general attitude about the competition aspect:

When I show up at competition, the team has put countless hours of work into the robot and strategy, and will put 100% effort towards putting the best possible product* on the field. And when it gets to the field we'll compete like no tomorrow, for doing anything else is disrespectful to our own efforts, and to our competitors.

That being said, you stop by our pit, you need help of any sort (except psychiatric we need that ourselves), we will do whatever is within our power to help you, Fasteners, tools, troubleshooting, rebuilding...

You ask, we'll help.

For the goal of pitting our creation against the toughest opponents we'll help.

I'd much rather loose a match fighting tooth and nail for it to someone running at 100% we helped, than to win against a crippled robot.

A sense of accomplishment is a very Inspiring thing

That sense of accomplishment can come from losses just as much from wins, you just need the right viewpoint.

I've never been one for the "you did your best" and other "everyone's a winner" sayings, they don't push you, they don't get you to analyze what went wrong and figure out where to improve. If i truly tried my hardest I would've accomplished my goal, if I fell short I WILL find out where and why, and remedy it.

A sense of accomplishment from hard work is getting our butts handed to us by 111 and 2826 in the Wisconsin finals, and working for a solid week to bring the battle to within a minibot fuse from a 3rd match at Midwest.

Bring your A game, wherever you go, I hope FIRST never pushes anything different


*product is robot, strategy, driveteam, communication

you pretty much summed up part of what i was trying to say earlier. GP is for off the field (in the pits/stands, etc.), but on the field, people should play to win.

[gblake]

you pretty much summed up part of what i was trying to say earlier. GP is for off the field (in the pits/stands, etc.), but on the field, people should play to win. This is a false dichotomy.

[BACONDUDE1902]

FTC Rocks!!!!

[Taylor]

To my eyes, FIRST has turned its focus to TOMA (Top Of Mind Awareness), and that has led to the things with which you disagree.

Regarding the message: People come and go. There are people who went to kickoff who are no longer with the team; there are people at the team who didn't go to kickoff. We've got parents, administrators, sponsors, friends at events - some just for a day, some just for a couple hours. If the message isn't repeated, it's lost.

FIRST has every right to brand itself, and it should. To reach the long-standing goal of being in every high school in America and abroad, people (a) have to know about FIRST and (b) realize FIRST isn't other robotics competitions. The more I think about Dean's comments at kickoff, the more I'm thinking it wasn't aimed at VEX/BEST as much as it was aimed at BattleBots. Most of the public associates competition robots with SawKill or HammerPound - the type of robotic competition that FIRST is most decidedly not. Creating that separation is necessary, and a key way to do that is through the branding of FIRST.

[treffk]

This is just my 0.02 and all my opinion, this is just how I see it. I was on a team as a student for 4 years and have now mentored for 2 years. I've been the assistant coach of FLL teams for 2 years and also am the assistant coordinator on the regional planning committee for the MO/KS area and have been for 3 years.

1. The "true" message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200000 times.
Personally I do not feel the message has been over used because everyone's view of the true message is different. Just look at what FIRST stands for "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology." How you go about achieving that in your team, school and community differs for every team because there are factors like other teams or a small town. I am someone that always is in a FIRST mindset, during the season it's all I talk about and off-season I'm the same way. Outside of your team and FIRST if you went into your community and asked 10 random people if they knew what FIRST was how many would say that they knew exactly what it was?
2. Go back to more competition, you're beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.
As you said FIRST started with gracious professionalism, which is sportsmanship taken to the next level. There was always a coopertition factor to it though, it just didn't have the label. Look at team 1108's No Robot Left Behind program or teams that get to competition and share their extra arms and such(I know my team did in 2007) and my team also loaned our Classmate to a team on an opposing team during the finals once so they could compete. I know that "coopertition" has only had the label for 2 years now but I still see competitiveness at the regionals.
3. Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it's not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it's about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.
I am unsure what shameless advertising you are talking about. So what if Wil.I.Am talked at kickoff, it shows that people are taking notice about FIRST. Even the picture of Obama on the ground looking at the robot, it is getting FIRST out there. I just do not see how this is "shameless" advertising.
4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
Yes it is nerdy, many teams have accepted this fact, just look at what some of the team uniforms/tshirts are. But, there are so many different parts of the team that are not quite as "nerdy." We recruit by talking about fun experiences and say that anyone can join. I've never gone out and labeled my team or others nerdy, I call them FIRSTers.
5. You were on a good track with the "spectator friendly" game breakaway, continue on that track.
I do not see how this years game was not "spectator friendly" nor do I see FIRST making a game that wasn't because (at least at GKC) the attendance of spectators is growing rapidly. This years game was a bit more difficult to follow all teams at once but most spectators come to watch their team. Breakway was a very simplistic game, it was basically just soccer.

[Frenchie461]

you pretty much summed up part of what i was trying to say earlier. GP is for off the field (in the pits/stands, etc.), but on the field, people should play to win.
Exactly. At 461, we try to help everyone who comes to us. It doesn't matter whether they are our next ally or our next opponent, we help them. If we end up losing, then we helped a team to success.

Why do we do that? What honor is there in defeating a bot that can't move or can't score, when you could defeat a bot by a small margin knowing that you helped them have a better experience at their regional because they could play the game.

[Bob Steele]

I would only like to address the issue of "shameless" advertising.

I don't get your point... This is the 20th Anniversary of FIRST.
It is ENTIRELY appropriate to use the LOGO as the game pieces.

Are you really so tunnel-visioned in your opinion about FIRST being self-serving to not see that?

As far as the game being the same one... sorry...not so...
We played in Rack and Roll... Different dynamics totally... even if you leave off the end game (ramps vs minibots)

If you want to have totally new games... we wouldn't be able to use a ball as a game piece. They have been used most years...

I suggest that if you want to boycott to force FIRST to do YOUR thing instead of what is currently being done... that is certainly your right.
Just take your robot and go play somewhere else...

Oh wait a minute... there really aren't any other places to play with a robot as sophisticated or a field as large or the rich history that this competition has..

My apologies to the other robot competitions...I have participated in many of them and I am in FIRST because it is really the Superbowl of Smarts... yes I like that phrase...

[Seathan93]

I am unsure what shameless advertising you are talking about. So what if Wil.I.Am talked at kickoff, it shows that people are taking notice about FIRST. Even the picture of Obama on the ground looking at the robot, it is getting FIRST out there. I just do not see how this is "shameless" advertising.


The game itself mostly, although seeing as it was the 20th anniversary, that makes more sense than it did initially. Also the video they put up on the splash page during the first week of build season.

if you haven't seen it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmyVKvZ3vfo&feature=related

[acrease77]

i agree with the third part, and also i was really mad this year that this year's game was almost EXACTLY like 2007 and like one of the games from the 1990s (i think '97) Hang a tube during auto, and make rows of tubes during teleop to get max points. I know how hard it is to make a robotics game, but still, there have been 3 hanging end games, 3 games hanging tubes on racks, a bunch with the octagon shaped goal things (like in 09 and 02), and i just feel like all teams had to do this yea (besides teams formed after 07) was to look at their robot from 07, see what they could do better, and see what robots were really good that year, so i really feel like the games are becoming more and more repetitive and repeats of previous years.

[Vermeulen]

First, I somewhat disagree with number 1. While I think that it can get a bit grating for FIRST veterans, It does a great deal of good for new members. It shows the newbies that this isn't battlebots, and that we have expectations that we act professionally. For me, it's more annoying to hear new people ask things like "why don't we put something on the robot to damage other ones" than hearing about gracious professionalism and coopertition. With that said, though, I think that a lot of people who haven't had much experience with FIRST don't know what those mean.

As to number 3, I agree that the FIRST splash page was needlessly awkward. It seemed to me as though they greatly overplayed the appearance he made at kickoff.

And at number four, I disagree. We don't recruit saying "Are you a nerd? Join all the nerds here!". We say "Hey, you can build these cool robots, no experience required, and here are XYZ reasons why it's good for you to do this." I don't think robotics is for nerds at all. I think that robotics is for people who want to learn, and be inspired.

[Ray T]

I have mentored FRC and FLL teams for ten years and I have to agree with the original poster's comments regarding FIRST and the message it shares.

Whether or not nerdy is nice or nasty is not entirely relevant. Broadcasting that you're not nerdy is a pretty sure way to highlight your nerdiness.

The games have become overly complicated for easy consumption by the general public. We study the game for 7 weeks before we actually play, only to find out that we don't understand all of its nuances. Ask yourselves how much time you spend explaining the game and the competition structure (randomized qualification matches, ranking points, coopertition points, alliance selection, etc.) to visiting relatives, let alone the other guests in the hotel lobby (the folks you're really trying to attract in order to "spread the word").

FIRST has created an amazing program for promoting interest in the field of engineering. It spans the globe. The competitions are exciting. Everyone - students, mentors, sponsors, guests - is inspired by the ideas and solutions developed by others. The enthusiasm is contagious. The only way that can happen is by FIRST promoting itself to potential sponsors, but I think FIRST has gone overboard in its promotion.

In our rookie year we were fortunate enough to qualify for, and attend the Championships. The competition was fun and exciting. Then we sat through the closing ceremony - for a long time. Our other mentor, myself and all of our team's parents felt like we had just sat through a pyramid-marketing convention. Aside from presenting teams their respective awards, the speeches were about how important FIRST is in encouraging students to pursue careers in science and technical fields. The speeches weren't about inspiring or encouraging youth toward those fields; they were about FIRST. Over the course of the last several years I have heard the phrase "...the message of FIRST..." more often than I have heard the actual message. That is shameless self-promotion. I believe the constant repetition that FIRST is about this, or FIRST is not about that, only serves to detract from the mission of most of the program's participants: inspiring young people to exceed everyone's expectations.

Largely as a result of our experience, we do not advertise ourselves as a FIRST team. To be sure, we are a robotics team that competes in FIRST, but we are primarily a team that shows kids that, when challenged, they can rise above themselves; that problem-solving is rewarding; and that they have the power and the ability to succeed.

[FRC4ME]

I have a couple of things to add to this thread:

1. Competition vs. coopertition: this has come up every year that I can remember (that would be 2007 and onward) and people are always complaining about rules, penalties, and seeding systems that discourage defense and "take the competition out of the game," so they say. "On the field you should play to win." Of course you should play to win! FIRST wants you to play to win; in 2010 GDC altered the seeding system after Week 1 to specifically clarify that teams are supposed to play to win.

Do not confuse rules against defense with rules against winning. It becomes more and more obvious to me each year that FIRST wants us to do one thing: build a robot that achieves the scoring challenge. It's that simple. We should play to win by scoring points, not by stopping other teams from scoring points. How do you beat a top-notch scoring team? Build something that can score better.

FIRST are not a bunch of hippie communists for wanting us to do this, but they simply encourage scoring for two reasons. First, GDC spends months developing a unique challenge for us each year; they want to see more teams tackling that challenge rather than building a brick on wheels. Second, this is how it works in the real world. What can you do if your competitor is beating you? Pretty much one of two options: (1) design a better product or (2) do something to hamper the effectiveness of your competitor's product. Option (1) leads to better technology for everyone; option (2) usually leads to an antitrust lawsuit. I'm glad FIRST is training future engineers to choose option (1).

Of course, for the competition itself to be fun it must involve some defense. I don't think recent games have gone so far as to prohibit this. Design a robot to play the game, and you have no penalties to worry about. Play defense when necessary, but be aware that it is risky - just as in the real world - and don't make it your primary focus. Above all, have fun, and remember that the competition season is only a small part of the FRC experience.

2. Do you think an average FRC game has more convoluted rules than American football, basketball, and baseball? Not even close. Yet those three sports are immensely popular. Many - probably a majority - of spectators who watch those sports do not understand the nuances of all of the rules, yet they still seem to enjoy watching the games.

FIRST doesn't need to dumb down the challenge to make the game fun to watch.

[jason701802]

That’s why the two highest awards given have nothing to do with the robots performance but instead with a team’s ability to achieve the goals of FIRST. If you are unsure of what these goals are visit the FIRST website and read their mission statement.

I so wish this were true. The Chairman's award and the Engineering Inspiration award are not given to the teams that do the best to spread the word of FIRST, instead they are given to the teams to best spread the word FIRST. It has become virtually impossible for a team to win the Chairman's without starting a FRC or FTC team and mentoring tens of FLL teams. We live in a small, fairly isolated community that is incapable of supporting another FRC team. Why can't we be given credit for showing kids what is so great about science and technology and for getting people together in our community instead of getting a few people involved with a FRC or FTC team. It can be very had to convince people that FIRST is so great when the cost per person is so high and similar benefits can be had without being directly involved in FIRST.

I am not saying that FIRST does not benefit those involved in incredible ways or that it is not an incredible program, just that FIRST involvement is not the only way to get kids excited about math, science and engineering, and that FIRST needs to recognize this fact.


2. Do you think an average FRC game has more convoluted rules than American football, basketball, and baseball? Not even close. Yet those three sports are immensely popular. Many - probably a majority - of spectators who watch those sports do not understand the nuances of all of the rules, yet they still seem to enjoy watching the games.

FIRST doesn't need to dumb down the challenge to make the game fun to watch.

Yes, but the "major" sports work because they have the same rules year after year and the general goal is simple. Having a new game each year is part of what makes FIRST so fun, but if FIRST wants more people walking in from the streets, they need to create games that can be concisely described. Breakaway and Aim High are good examples of this, Lunacy wasn't even that bad, but I think this years game may have been the worst in my 10 years of FIRST (in terms on simplicity and explain-ability).

[AndyH]

This year especially, I have several concerns with FIRST. I realize that they have a right to do as they choose, but we have a responsibility to evaluate our participation in FIRST.

Here are two of the things bugging me:

1 - Where is Woodie? He is the educator; Dean is the salesman. In my opinion, FIRST is heading away from the former and toward the latter.

2 - Whatever we do, FIRST is always asking for more. Not, "We know that schools are really cutting budgets, and we appreciate that you have made this a priority. Let's talk about how we can keep this affordable." Instead they ask, "What can YOU do for FIRST? How can you get more teams involved, etc?" Perhaps they should also focus on keeping current teams involved. FIRST seems to no longer care about sustaining. Growth is the only goal, and it's HUGE for them. In my opinion, this has gotten more and more obvious over the past few years.

Notes - I know that they have done the light bulbs. That doesn't actually help make the program more affordable. It's more promotion for FIRST. A REAL savings would be to not require us to use motors that burn out frequently and are $20 to replace. For FTC, Lego is clearly making a fortune.

Also, we DID try to get people involved. We made a huge deal in our community to get people excited about the championships. Now we don't even know if there will be room for them to sit, but that's another thread...

[mwtidd]

2. Do you think an average FRC game has more convoluted rules than American football, basketball, and baseball? Not even close. Yet those three sports are immensely popular. Many - probably a majority - of spectators who watch those sports do not understand the nuances of all of the rules, yet they still seem to enjoy watching the games.

FIRST doesn't need to dumb down the challenge to make the game fun to watch.

Well first one key difference between the rules of most sports and first is scoring.

Multiplicative scoring is absurd. It didn't make sense in 05 or 07 so why try it again now.

In every sport scoring is summation based. In basketball and football, you have the opportunity for extra points, but for the most sports your score a goal, you get x points for it.

In football, you may not understand all the penalties, or even the scoring, but you can quickly be told the goal and understand the basic idea.

Logomotion, not so much.

The problem is the way FIRST games are played. I understand the reason for autonomous / teleop / end game, but undertsanding this means to describe the basic format of the game, you have to describe 3 games each uniquely distinct, with distinct rules.

I would like to see all 3 of these incorporated into a single task making the game one game, but incorporating all of these elements, autonomous, teleop, and bonus.

I know nearly everyone would disagree with me, but end game takes away from the "game" aspect. No other sport or game has a concept of the end game. I will say that end games are very exciting for spectators, but maybe there is an alternative way of incorporating endgame in a field goal type manner. A fieldgoal / 2pt conversion doesnt break the flow of football, its not like its a completely different task than typical football play. I think having the endgame a natural extension of the game would be a cool idea. I think lunacy had something like this and overdrive did this very well. Also I'd like to see autonomous incorporated into the game, create a dead zone or something, where robots can only accomplish certain goals using autonomous, rather than having an autonomous period. Image the 2x ball in 04 only being able to be acquired using autonomous. This way autonomous would give you a distinct advantage, but during a match we wouldn't have 15 seconds of 1/3 of the robots moving. I think it would create an interesting dynamic to autonomous, that doesnt currently exist. Also then matches could be 3 minutes long, no 2 minutes with a different game at the beginning and the end.

Basically sports have crazy rules, with many outliers, but the basic idea is easy to understand, and you catch on to critical outliers very quickly. I think FIRST can learn a lot from sports, and not detract from the challenge in doing so. Also linear scoring is important too...

but knowing first, next year we'll see binary or exponential scoring :)

[Enigma's puzzle]

I definately don't agree with the bashing of Gracious Professionalism, and Coopertition. You say that they detract from the competition, however your dead wrong. Although it seems like they use the words too much, but if I had a patented word... it would appear in as many sentences as I could swing it.


Gracious Professionalism:
How many Sports have trash talk? I don't know if you have ever played any competitive sports, but it is quite demoralizing getting beaten badly, and then reminded by your opponents. I have yet to see that in FIRST, as is the goal of Gracious Professionalism. It keeps people from getting demoralized to the point of anger, and hopefully instead drives them to work harder.

Coopertition:
Improvements can always be made. Some other team is always going to know something you don't, and you should be able to learn from them. But if they keep everything a secret, its going to be difficult. Since the goal of the competition is to learn, being open and helpful is essential, thus Coopertition.

[cyberjoek]

A fieldgoal / 2pt conversion doesnt break the flow of football, its not like its a completely different task than typical football play.

Actually this was exactly the example I was going to go for but as the opposite proof.

For 95% of the game of American Football teams do not want the ball to touch the ground and they use their hands to carry or throw the ball towards pre-marked zones at each end of the field.

In the other 5% a specialized player enters the field to put the ball on the ground then send it through specially marked Vision Targets (also referred to as Uprights).

Each competitive teams needs one or two people who can perform the specialized action in order to win (in some games the majority of points comes from the specialized action).

The difference is in FIRST we move all the field goals to the end of the game and it's not an iconic standard thing that has been there since the beginning of time.

-Joe Kavanagh

[Cuog]

I would say I have very mixed opinions on some of this. I guess I'll start with the bad and end with the good for those that like to be a little more optimistic.

First and foremost in my mind is the cult like nature of FIRST lately(maybe longer but its struck me heavily in the past few years). The current expansion methods seem right out of the cult playbook, there's #1(Dean) that everyone needs to worship for his amazingness($$ Segway etc.), next get some celebs to talk about you for a second and publicize that sentence to death. Don't forget the most important thing you can do as a member of FIRST is to get more people to join. My opinion is that this is the wrong way to grow FIRST. It is a great program focused on gracious professionalism and mentorship, and I think if it were allowed to grow naturally the program would be so much better for the students. I think that the push for more is leaving those who have already joined FIRST out in the cold. It's a little bit of one in hand two in bush scenario, and I wish FIRST would stop dropping the kids in hand to chase those hiding in the bushes.

Second, and what hit me hard, is the focus on Engineering only. For those that forgot FIRST = For Inspiration and Recognition of SCIENCE and Technology. This past year, I have stepped up a lot more to what has been the hardest challenge for me so far: mentoring my old team. During my time mentoring I've spoken with a number of people from educators, business people, members of FIRST, parents, and many more. All of them are excited to hear about the help I've given in sharing my experience with the students, and helping the bridge the generational gap. They're excited to hear my personal projects, building a small machine shop, the cars I'm building, the electrical and programming challenges I give myself build amplifiers and gadgets. Then things turn, they ask what I'm studying in school. I tell them Environmental Science. They all give me the same look that says nothing more than "Oh, what a waste" and the conversation is over. All through High School, I didn't know what I wanted to do for a living, but I knew I liked building things. I came from a line of engineers, I enjoyed FIRST, so everyone everywhere told me to become an engineer, it seemed to make sense, so I did. When I got to engineering I found it very much wasn't for me. While I've been pretty decent at math and problem solving, it just pulled the soul out of me, and I had no desire to continue. It turned out my passion had been machining, something I've been working on heavily in my spare time with what little money I have to spare. My area of study moved to one of my interests that most people wouldn't guess: Environmental Science. Had anyone spoken up against the wave of engineering to encourage me to pursue machining originally I would have taken it, but instead, I got to take the long way.

They're small problems, but I feel they're the cause of most of the things I hear complaints about, and I think they're holding back FIRST's potential to be truly great.

Now the good:
Spectator games: I know FIRST isn't as successful at this as some would like, but I am glad they are making the effort, and I hope with practice they become proficient at making games enjoyable to watch, and enjoyable to design toward.

Mentorship:
When I was a student on the team my team prided itself in being 100% student run/managed/led, because we didn't have the advantage of working with skilled mentors, I feel that I missed out on a good opportunity. I'm glad that is not the direction FIRST is taking, and I am quite glad my team has left that tradition as well.

Coopertition:
I'm glad to see this idea embodied in FIRST as well. A level of competition is a great fuel for creativity. I very much like the way this is balanced with the idea of cooperation. Some years the execution in the competition isn't optimal as some have already given details. I feel we should all forgive what is such a small misstep in the scheme of things.

For the TLDR crowd:
FIRST needs to stop being a cult, and remember they're for more than just engineering.
FIRST has done great at making an accessible competition focusing on mentorship and coopertition and should continue to improve these aspects of the organization.

As far as the "nerd issue" I would just like to point out that mainstreaming typically nerdy ideas seems to be very successful; just look at the success of recent movies like Tron, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings etc. coming from a nerd heritage can be very advantageous, but that doesn't mean you need to embody the downsides of nerddom. Keep the good and throw out the rest, and make it better.

[mwtidd]

Actually this was exactly the example I was going to go for but as the opposite proof.

For 95% of the game of American Football teams do not want the ball to touch the ground and they use their hands to carry or throw the ball towards pre-marked zones at each end of the field.

In the other 5% a specialized player enters the field to put the ball on the ground then send it through specially marked Vision Targets (also referred to as Uprights).

Each competitive teams needs one or two people who can perform the specialized action in order to win (in some games the majority of points comes from the specialized action).

The difference is in FIRST we move all the field goals to the end of the game and it's not an iconic standard thing that has been there since the beginning of time.

-Joe Kavanagh

Actually if you are breaking down football like this, the goal is not to not have the ball touch the ground, but rather for you not to touch the ground.

Your goal is to score, and there are 2 main ways to score. To kick a ball through the uprights, or to move forward into an endzone.

The only way you can move forward is to run or throw the ball.

At the core this is football.


I don't view football in terms of time to accomplish various tasks, but rather the various tasks that must be completed. Actually if you look at football in general, time really isn't a core factor. Obviously as you get deeper into it time becomes a factor, but for a basic understanding of football, time is not needed.

I guess I would break it down the basis for a game to 2 core questions.

How do you score?
How do you play?

In your definition you focus on the state of the ball, rather than the state of the game. The fact that a player puts the ball on the ground to kick a field goal really is unimportant to playing football.

In football where it is a turn based game, the third question I would answer is:

When does a turn end?

When defining problems, it is helpful to break it down into its core elements. I fear that FIRST tends to take your approach when defining games, rather than taking a spectators approach.

To define a game in the way you have, imagine soccer. Try defining soccer in terms of players and goalies. In describing the game of soccer, the goalie is traditionally introduced after the game has been introduced.

[E. Wood]

I so wish this were true. The Chairman's award and the Engineering Inspiration award are not given to the teams that do the best to spread the word of FIRST, instead they are given to the teams to best spread the word FIRST. It has become virtually impossible for a team to win the Chairman's without starting a FRC or FTC team and mentoring tens of FLL teams. We live in a small, fairly isolated community that is incapable of supporting another FRC team. Why can't we be given credit for showing kids what is so great about science and technology and for getting people together in our community instead of getting a few people involved with a FRC or FTC team. It can be very had to convince people that FIRST is so great when the cost per person is so high and similar benefits can be had without being directly involved in FIRST.

I am not saying that FIRST does not benefit those involved in incredible ways or that it is not an incredible program, just that FIRST involvement is not the only way to get kids excited about math, science and engineering, and that FIRST needs to recognize this fact.

I actually had the same thought many years ago. Both of the team I have worked with are from small rural areas with a limited amount of resources. I was under the impression that only "big city team" could win. I however pressed forwarded a a few years later we won. At the time we had a few FLL teams but that was it as far as other FIRST teams go. We did have a lot of community outreach and stories of how we had changed our culture using the principles of FIRST. The presentation is the biggest part of Chairman's Award. Highlighting your teams strengths is a must.

[wireties]

The game itself mostly, although seeing as it was the 20th anniversary, that makes more sense than it did initially. Also the video they put up on the splash page during the first week of build season.

if you haven't seen it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmyVKvZ3vfo&feature=related


We could do away with the shameless advertising (which is mostly designed to attract sponsors) by paying $10K per regional - which would be crazy!

[playbass06]

1. The "true" message of FIRST is great, but it does not need to be repeated 200,000 times.
Agreed, but to a point it is necessary to make sure teams get it. There are those who still don't get it's not about the robot alone, and this repetition of the FIRST message will eventually get through to them. I think that's their though process behind it.

2. Go back to more competition, you're beginning to lack in the competitive part of coopertition.
Agreed, there is far too much coopertition. I'm here to have some fun in the game, and that fun is killed when you have matches that are complete shutouts. I don't like how ranking points are based on the opposing alliance score, especially since you can't score for them this year. Breakaway made it okay because you could always turn around and score for the other team, but this year you simply have to pray they get a minibot up.
I say this - complete cooperation off the field, complete competition on the field. This would probably make it more spectator-friendly as well.

3. Enough of the shameless advertising. FIRST is not about the robots, great, but it's not about the politics either, nor is it about FIRST, it's about the future and inspiring our generation, and the next one.
I somewhat agree, and there are things that are being put in place to make a point of this, like the Dean's List award (congratulations to all you finalists!). I really don't think this is happening as you see it, though. I think that FIRST is advertising exactly what you want them to - inspiring our and the next generation. I do have to agree with a previous poster that some celebrity guests are a bit too much, though.

4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
Like many before me have said, being a nerd is not a bad thing. We take pride in it. I think the best thing would be to simply stop trying to say anything about nerdiness, be it for or against it. Let people see it as they like, and you'll get students from both sides joining up.

5. You were on a good track with the "spectator friendly" game breakaway, continue on that track.
Breakaway was easy to keep track of due to its simple scoring, but someone (I can't remember who now) mentioned the fact that its goals were on opposite sides, which made it harder for spectators to grasp the concept or follow the game quite as well. I definitely see your point here, and I'd never really thought about that aspect. But there are a lot of sports that have two goals (football, soccer, basketball, etc...) such as this, so I don't think it plays into it very much at all. Maybe I misunderstood and you meant one goal was confusing. I've only been on the team since Lunacy, which was just ridiculous (moving goals aren't a good idea), and I'm split between Breakaway and Logomotion in terms of which was the best. Logomotion is definitely harder to score but I'd say it is more exciting - there's a lot of suspense involved in the gameplay, and some unique defensive robots (3528 and 2240 are the two I've seen with the expandable design, which was pretty cool) make for some very interesting matches.
I don't think the problem is complex scoring, though. I think it's the time it takes to get the final score and how it sometimes differs greatly from what was expected. If FIRST ever gets a completely automatic scoring system, spectators will have no problem following it.

[Seathan93]

4. Robotics is nerdy. The sooner that is accepted, and embraced, the sooner FIRST can confidently attract others to the program. Nothing says "nerds, beware" like a sign saying "hehehe, it's not nerdy"
Like many before me have said, being a nerd is not a bad thing. We take pride in it. I think the best thing would be to simply stop trying to say anything about nerdiness, be it for or against it. Let people see it as they like, and you'll get students from both sides joining up.


I'm not sure whether people just misinterpreted what I said, or jumped down to the summary but:

What I was basically trying to get across is exactly what you said, that we should just stop trying to say anything about it. The accepting it was more towards, that's how most people who are NOT involved with engineering or robotics or FIRST view this competition. Basically, when talking about FIRST, mention all the good things about it, but don't even mention the nerdy/cool aspect of it.